Scott Adams

{{bronze}}
[[File:Scott Adams 2017.png|thumb|right|165px|Bill Watterson's understudy.]]{{media}}
{{cquote|As far as Adams' ego goes … he has a certified [[High IQ society|genius I.Q.]], and that's hard to hide.|||
plannedchaos
 Scott Adams<ref>Scott Adams posting via sockpuppet, [http://www.metafilter.com/102472/How-to-Get-a-Real-Education-by-Scott-Adams comments section to "How to Get a Real Education"], The Wall Street Journal</ref>}}

{{cquote|If experience is necessary for being president, name a political topic I can't master in one hour under the tutelage of top experts.|||Scott Adams<ref name=experts>Adams, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190429054449/https:/twitter.com/scottadamssays/status/758665517188034560 If experience is necessary for being president, name a political topic I can't master in one hour under the tutelage of top experts.] by Scott Adams (7:08 AM - 28 Jul 2016) ''Twitter'' (archived from April 29, 2019).</ref>}}

'''Scott Raymond Adams''' {{lived|1957|2026}} had a self-reported [[IQ]] of 185, and don't you forget it.<ref>[https://archive.ph/QEE1a 185. Reportedly.] by Scott Adams (12:44 PM · Sep 7, 2022) ''Twitter'' (archived from 21 Sep 2022 23:59:09 UTC).</ref> He was an [[United States|American]] trained [[Hypnosis|hypnotist]]<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070710193443/http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/hypnosis.html "Hypnosis"], Dilbert Blog 7.7.07.</ref> and cartoonist known for ''Dilbert'', a long-running [[Satire|satirical]] comic strip about a white-collar office worker in America. His blog, which is a fascinating study of a man going [[insane]],<ref>Gettys, Travis, [http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/dilbert-cartoonist-scott-adams-thinks-hell-be-assassinated-if-he-doesnt-endorse-clinton/"'Dilbert' cartoonist Scott Adams thinks he'll be assassinated if he doesn't endorse Clinton"], Raw Story (6/6/16 at 11:43 ET).</ref> attracted major media attention during the 2016 election. Long before that, he advanced some [[crank]] positions, including questioning [[evolution]] and the validity of the [[fossil record]]. He appeared on [[InfoWars]], further cementing his genius IQ.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20191210161106/https://www.infowars.com/scott-adams-kanye-west-and-dennis-rodman-remind-us-how-freedom-of-speech-empowers-everybody/ Scott Adams: Kanye West And Dennis Rodman Remind Us How Freedom Of Speech Empowers Everybody] (April 27, 2018) ''InfoWars'' (archived from December 10, 2019).</ref>

Adams had a Bachelor of Economics from Hartwick College and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of California, Berkeley.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20171019111838/https://ewmba.haas.berkeley.edu/community/alumni/profiles/adams_scott.html Scott Adams, MBA 86] ''Berkeley Haas School of Business'' (archived from October 19, 2017).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190801131240/https://www.scottadamssays.com/about/ About] ''Scott Adams Says''.</ref> Before his ''Dilbert'' career, he worked in telecommunications as a manager; Scott later embarked on a new life as a social engineer. He lived in a house shaped like Dilbert and had a matrix of microwaves for making large quantities of burritos and popcorn at once{{onion}}{{efn|Adams' obsession with microwave burritos was so great that he created a 'food' product called the "Dilberito", which Adams himself said that it caused "severe gastrointestinal issues", and other have described it as "truly awful".<ref name=bindman/>}} that Adams  while writing about how [[Neoconservatism|neocon]] interventionism is just a persuasive tactic.<ref>Cavna, Michael, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-win-in-a-landslide-the-mind-behind-dilbert-explains-why/ "Donald Trump will win in a landslide: The mind behind 'Dilbert' explains why."], ''Washington Post'' 3.21.16.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190524095701/https:/twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/850171766508879872 Destroying the Syrian Air Force is a 360-degree persuasion play. Regime change would be another matter.] by Scott Adams (7:21 PM - 6 Apr 2017) ''Twitter'' (archived from May 24, 2019).</ref>

Adams's social media insanity finally caught up to him in February 2023 when, in a [[YouTube]] video, he described all [[African American|Blacks]] as a "hate group". This led to many large newspapers as well as ''Dilbert'''s distributor dropping the comic.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/27/dilbert-demise-scott-adams-00084665 "Rapid demise of ‘Dilbert’ is no surprise to those watching"] by Associated Press, posted at Politico.com, 2023 February 27</ref> To those who had followed Adams's decline into madness since at least the mid-2000s, however, this thoroughly [[racist]] statement, while awful, was not much of a shock or a surprise given his past history.

On May 20, 2025, Scott Adams announced that he was suffering from an aggressive form of prostate [[cancer]] and likely had only months to live.<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2025/05/20/nx-s1-5404399/scott-adams-dilbert-prostate-cancer-biden 'Dilbert' creator Scott Adams says he's dying of 'the same cancer that Joe Biden has']</ref> At first trying to treat his cancer with [[ivermectin]], when that predictably didn't work he begged [[Donald Trump]] for experimental cancer medication.<ref>[https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/cancer-diaries-scott-adams-reminder-064557512.html Cancer Diaries: Scott Adams is a reminder to trust your doctor over worm pills], Erna Mahyuni, ''Yahoo News Malaysia'' 14 January 2026</ref> He eventually succumbed to it the following January.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/entertainment/scott-adams-death-cec Scott Adams, ‘Dilbert’ comic creator, dies]</ref><ref>David K. Li and Austin Mullen (January 13, 2026). [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/obituaries/scott-adams-dilbert-creator-dies-rcna253792 "Scott Adams, 'Dilbert' creator and conservative commentator, dies at 68"]. NBC.</ref>

==Pro-worker?==
''Dilbert'' became popular in the 1990s because it was able to capture the disenchantment of office cubicle workers with their jobs and their corporate employers. However, as Norman Soloman pointed out in his 1997 book, ''[https://archive.org/details/troublewithdilbe00solo_0 The Trouble with Dilbert]'', Scott Adams was always a tool for those corporate employers, as he turned away their resentment from the entities that caused their predicament — corporations and their fat-cat managers — towards the [[scapegoat]], that is, middle management. Soloman also pointed out that he was actually rather popular with the very corporations he "criticized", to the point he earned big bucks from their sponsorships of various merchandise, and ''un''popular with the very organizations that actually defend workers (that is, labor unions), at the same time as actually defending some of the things that caused said predicament, like corporate downsizing.

==Views on science and history==
===Adams knew ''The Secret''===
{{cquote|…I get paid the same no matter what I do.|||The secret phrase that Dilbert repeatedly uses.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150125090246/http://dilbert.com/strip/1993-03-07 ''Dilbert''] by Scott Adams (March 07, 1993).</ref><ref>''Fugitive From the Cubicle Police'' by Scott Adams (1996) Andrews and McMeel. ISBN 0836221192.</ref>{{rp|191}}}}
In his 1997 book ''The Dilbert Future'', Adams professed his belief in the bit of [[woo]] known as the [[law of attraction]] (a concept popularized by the 2006 book ''[[The Secret]]''), claiming that he had achieved multiple life goals through the power of positive thinking alone:
{{quotebox|The idea behind writing affirmations is that you simply write down your goals 15 times a day and somehow, as if by [[magic]], [[coincidence]]s start to build until you achieve your objective against all odds. Prior to my Dilbert success, I used affirmations on a string of hugely unlikely goals that all materialized in ways that seemed miraculous. Some of the successes you can explain away by assuming I'm hugely talented and incredibly shsexy, and therefore it is no surprise that I accomplished my goals despite seemingly long odds. But some of my goals involved neither hard work nor skill of any kind. I succeeded with those too, against all odds.<ref>''The Dilbert Future: Thriving on Business Stupidity in the 21<sup>st</sup> Century'' by Scott Adams (1998) HarperBusiness. {{Isbn|0887309100}}.</ref>}}

===Holocaust denialism===
In a 2006 blog post<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070222235609/http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/10/sunday_blogging.html archived copy]</ref> (which has since been deleted), Adams flirted with [[Holocaust denialism]], questioning whether estimates of the number of people killed during the [[Holocaust]] were reliable:

{{quotebox|I'd also like to know how the Holocaust death total of 6 million was determined. Is it the sort of number that is so well documented with actual names and perhaps a [[Nazi]] paper trail that no historian could doubt its accuracy, give or take ten thousand? Or is it like every other LRN (large round number) that someone pulled out of his ass and it became true by repetition? Does the figure include resistance fighters and civilians who died in the normal course of war, or just the [[Jews]] rounded up and killed systematically? No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened, but wouldn't you like to know how the exact number was calculated, just for context? Without that context, I don't know if I should lump the people who think the [[Holocaust]] might have been exaggerated for political purposes with the Holocaust deniers. If they are equally nuts, I’d like to know that. I want context.<ref>Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20070222235609/http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/10/sunday_blogging.html Sunday Blogging!]", The Dilbert Blog (archived on the [[Internet Archive]])</ref>}}

Casting doubt on the number of dead from the Holocaust without citing any actual evidence can be considered a form of denialism ({{wpl|Holocaust distortion}}) because it attempts to minimize it.

If he actually wanted to know where the figures came from, he could have looked on [[Wikipedia]]<ref>{{wpa|Holocaust_victims}}</ref> or used his Internet skills to Google it<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20151011121811/http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008193 Documenting numbers of victims], US Holocaust Memorial Museum</ref> or even asked an expert as he once recommended,<ref name=experts/> but posting in a blog is an odd way to find an authoritative source for any fact and smacks of [[JAQing off]].

===Struggling to understand evolution===
In March 2007, Adams posted a piece on his blog seemingly questioning [[evolution]], in which he stated that the [[fossil record]] didn't pass his [[The Fine Art of Baloney Detection|baloney detector]]:
{{quotebox|I've been trying for years to reconcile my [[Dunning-Kruger effect|usually-excellent bullshit filter]] with the idea that evolution is considered a [[scientific]] fact. Why does a well-established scientific fact set off my usually-excellent [[bullshit]] filter like a five-alarm fire? It's the fossil record that has been bugging me the most. It looks like bullshit. Smells like bullshit. Tastes like bullshit. Why isn't it bullshit? All those scientists can't be wrong.<ref name="adams-fossils">Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20070316100444/http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/03/fossils_are_bul.html Fossils are Bullshit]", Dilbert Blog</ref>}}

His explanation for why he deemed [[fossil]]s "bullshit" seemed to be the product of an extremely garbled understanding of [[paleontology]] and [[evolutionary biology]]:
{{quotebox|Yesterday I read this article in Newsweek about how [[DNA]] testing is being used to show that, well, fossils are bullshit.

The bottom line is that [[DNA]] tests (which do not set off my bullshit detector) have shown that you can't really tell what set of bones begat other sets of bones just by looking at how they differed and how old they are. Apparently, evolution is more complex than imagined, and there were lots of ape-people varieties wandering around at the same time. Some had modern features that they weren’t supposed to have. The so-called modern features apparently popped up and disappeared more than once, and in more than one species.

My bullshit filter accepts this new information. I was having a hard time with the idea that some goober in tan pants would dig up a bone fragment in Africa and know it was his own (great X 1,000) grandmother. It just didn't feel right. And now we know, assuming the DNA evidence is solid, that the guy in the tan pants was full of shit. All that the fossils show is that there used to be ape-people who are not us.<ref name="adams-fossils"/>}}

===Advocating Pascal's Wager===
{{main|Pascal's Wager}}
In his post about fossils, Adams stated that he does not believe in "[[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] or [[creationism]] or invisible friends of any sort."<ref name="adams-fossils"/> However, in a 2007 blog post, he appeared to express the view that [[atheism]] (defined here solely as claiming there's no [[God]]) is essentially a form of [[dogma]]tism, and he used a version of [[Pascal's Wager]] to defend belief in 
an invisible friend
 [[God]]:
{{quotebox|This brings me to atheists. In order to be certain that God doesn't exist, you have to possess a godlike mental capacity – the ability to be 100% certain. A human can't be 100% certain about anything. Our brains aren't that reliable. Therefore, to be a true atheist, you have to believe you are the very thing that you argue doesn’t exist: God.

Perhaps you will argue that being 99.999999% certain God doesn’t exist is just as good as being 100% sure. That strikes me as bad math. As other philosotainers have famously noted, a small chance of spending eternity in [[Hell]] has to be taken seriously. Eternity is a long time.

Let me put this in perspective. You might be willing to accept a 10% risk of going skiing and getting hurt, but you wouldn’t accept a 10% risk of a [[nuclear war]]. The larger the potential problem, the less risk you are willing to tolerate.

An eternity in Hell is the largest penalty there could ever be. So while you might not worry about a .00000000001% chance of ending up in Hell, you can’t deny the math. [[Appeal to probability|.00000000001% of eternity is a lot longer than your entire mortal life]]. Infinitely longer.<ref name="adams2">Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20080413113844/http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/the-atheist-who.html The Atheist Who Thought He Was God]", Dilbert Blog</ref>}}

Amusingly, Adams blurred percent certainty with percent probability; these are different. In addition, [[probability]] cannot be calculated for events with zero historical data or evidence backing the event up. Adams's purported chance of ending up in Hell, 0.00000000001%, was entirely arbitrary and could have easily been 0.00000000002% or even a [[:Conservapedia:Schlafly Statistics|Schlafly Statistic]]. His larger point that a fraction of [[infinity]] is still infinity is true but come on! Applying pseudo-risk management to [[religious]] decisions? Of course, most atheists are not claiming they ''know'' God doesn't exist, especially not with perfect certainty, apparently an unknown fact to Adams (though easy to find out), so he attacked a [[strawman]] from the beginning.

This of course is all on top of the other problems with Pascal's Wager: what if another religion is right, what if God doesn't reward faking belief in him, etc.

Right before he died, he had a "[[deathbed conversion]]" despite still saying he wasn't a believer:

{{quotebox|I'm not a believer, but I have to admit the risk-reward calculation for (converting) looks attractive to me. So here I go: I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior and look forward to spending an eternity with him. The part about me not being a believer should be completely resolved if I wake up in heaven. I won’t need any more convincing than that. I hope I’m still qualified for entry<ref>[https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2026/01/13/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-has-passed-leaving-a-message-for-us-all/ ‘Dilbert’ creator Scott Adams has died, leaving a message for us all], Jennifer Graham, ''Deseret News'' 13 January 2026</ref>}}

==="Science kicked me in the balls!"===
In a 2015 blog post, Adams [[blaming the victim|blamed science]] for the tendency of the [[media]] to misrepresent science, accusing science of "being silent when bad science morphed into popular misconceptions."<ref name="adams-science2015">Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20150202164550/http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109880240641/sciences-biggest-fail Science's Biggest Fail]", Scott Adams Blog</ref> He went on to offer the following muddled understanding of the scientific process:
{{quotebox|I think science has earned its lack of credibility with the public. If you kick me in the balls for 20-years, ''[sic]'' how do you expect me to close my eyes and trust you?

If a person doesn’t believe climate change is real, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is that a case of a dumb human or a science that has not earned credibility? We humans operate on pattern recognition. The pattern science serves up, thanks to its winged monkeys in the media, is something like this:

Step One: We are totally sure the answer is X.

Step Two: Oops. X is wrong. But Y is totally right. Trust us this time.

Science isn't about being right every time, or even most of the time. It is about being ''more'' right over time and fixing what it got wrong. So how is a common citizen supposed to know when science is "done" and when it is halfway to done which is the same as being wrong?<ref name="adams-science2015" />}}

[[Steven Novella]] called that blog entry "a rant against science, arguing that the public is justified in not trusting the findings of science because [[science was wrong before|science has been wrong before]]."<ref name="Novella">{{cite web|url=https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/scott-adams-on-science-and-nutrition/|title=Scott Adams on Science and Nutrition|date=12 February 2015|last=Novella|first=Steven|work=Neurologica Blog|accessdate=11 March 2023}}</ref> Novella responded: "He makes two major errors in his analysis. The first is to confuse mainstream media reporting of science with the science itself. The second is to have an incorrect image of how science progresses over time."<ref name="Novella"/> Although Novella acknowledged, "There is a legitimate criticism to be made in terms of scientific institutions putting more resources and value into communicating science to the public," Novella criticized Adams for "contributing to the very problem about which he is complaining."<ref name="Novella"/>

===Global warming===
[[File:Dilbert-2016-06-16.jpg|Climate change denial in Dilbert|thumb|500px]]

Though Adams said he didn't reject the consensus, he made up "reasoning" for why science wasn't convincing the "skeptics".<ref>Adams, S. (March 8, 2017). [https://web.archive.org/web/20170308235702/http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-skeptics-that-climate-change-is-a How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change is a Problem]. Scott Adams' blog. Retrieved March 23, 2017.</ref> As with other points, he was more [[JAQing off]] than offering valid suggestions to convince people. He called the climate scientists "alarmists" and gave poor "reasoning" for why the "skeptics" weren't convinced, mainly because things look "fishy". He demonstrated a poor, simplistic understanding of climate change; for instance, he tried comparing prediction models for global warming to financial models and concluded that since financial models cannot predict the future, neither can models made from very predictable long-term phenomena. He also asked for accurate [[economic]] models to show how it affects states of affairs, something well out of economic expertise, then said economic models are worthless.

{{quotebox|Stop telling me the "models" (plural) are good. If you told me one specific model was good, that might sound convincing. But if climate scientists have multiple models, and they all point in the same general direction, something sounds fishy. If climate science is relatively "settled," wouldn't we all use the same models and assumptions?

And why can't science tell me which one of the different models is the good one, so we can ignore the less-good ones? What’s up with that? If you can't tell me which model is better than the others, why would I believe anything about them?}}

He thought that since several models pointed in one direction, scientists were manipulating data. On the other hand, according to science, many models predicting the same outcome make it more robust at prediction. The suggestion he made, which is "using the same models and assumptions" — plural, still! — meant he clearly contradicted himself. To have a sheen of credibility, he should have gone with: "model and assumptions".

He also saw an article (without specifying it or referencing it) that said humans are responsible for more than 100% of warming because otherwise, [[Earth]] would be cooling. He thought this was silly and, therefore, climate science is dubious. Since the beaches he saw looked "normal", and he saw Google results that "debunk" the rise in sea levels, climate science is fishy and can't be trusted. He didn't like it when the climate change "alarmists" resorted to a version of [[Pascal's Wager]] because "[t]he world is full of risks that might happen. We don't treat all of them as real." He made arguments that were typical of denialist talking points, including "[[Global warming#It has been hotter in the past so it is just cyclical|Earth went through natural cycles before]]" and "[[Global warming#Antarctic sea ice is increasing|why is there a decrease in Arctic ice and an increase in Antarctic ice]]" (with no regard to nuance, such as ice specified), stating that there are record cold AND record heat times or periods, with disregard for the big picture.

If these are questions the climate change deniers want to pose to climate scientists, it only shows how ignorant they are on the subject, not that they want results that don't resemble a financial scam.

==Views on women and sexuality==
===Women's work, brains, and opinions===
In March 2011, Adams posted a piece on his blog in which he appeared to use some standard [[MRA]] talking points, stating that [[gender pay gap|wage disparity]] between men and women is the result of men "get[ting] better results" than women because "on average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women," and also apparently attributing the lower number of women in high managerial positions to an unwillingness to sacrifice "family time" in exchange for career advancement.<ref name="adams3">[http://web.archive.org/web/20110402175229/http://tinysprout.tumblr.com/post/3713649989/scott-adams-dilbert-deleted-post Archived copy] of the Adams' piece on the Internet Archive.</ref> However, he seemingly advised MRAs that it is pointless trying to fight "the widespread suppression of men's rights," on the apparent grounds that women are simple-minded and we're supposed to be nice to simple-minded people:

{{quotebox|The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.<ref name="adams3" />}}

In response to the backlash he received, Adams [[burning the evidence|deleted the post]] from his blog, apparently forgetting that it's impossible to make something disappear once it hits the Internet.<ref name="hudson">Laura Hudson, "[http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ 'Dilbert' Creator Scott Adams Compares Women Asking for Equal Pay to Children Demanding Candy]", Comics Alliance</ref> He left a comment on the blog Feministe, stating that objectors to the post were failing to understand it because their "reading comprehension" was compromised by "emotion", unlike regular readers of his blog, who he claimed have "an unusually high reading comprehension level" and "are pretty far along the [[Normal|bell curve]] toward [[rational]] thought, and relatively immune to emotional distortion."<ref name="hudson" /><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110326053958/http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/03/24/scott-adams-to-mens-rights-activists-dont-bother-arguing-with-women-theyre-like-children/#comment-356576 Comment signed as "Scott Adams"] to [[David Futrelle]]'s post ''Scott Adams to Men’s Rights Activists: Don't bother arguing with women; they’re like children.'' on Feministe</ref>

In the introduction to ''Your New Job Title is "Accomplice"'', a compilation of ''Dilbert'' comic strips released in 2013, Adams claimed to have suffered "[[reverse discrimination]]" in the 1990s, alleging that his bosses at the time told him he was "unqualified for any sort of promotion because [he] had [[reverse racism|boring DNA]] and a [[reverse sexism|scrotum]]."<ref>Zeno, "[http://zenoferox.blogspot.ca/2013/06/scott-adams-changes-his-tune.html Scott Adams changes his tune?]", Halfway There blog</ref> This contradicts an interview he gave in ''Inc.'' magazine in 1996, in which he stated he "told all of [his] bosses [he] would resign if they ever felt [his] costs exceeded [his] benefits," and then voluntarily complied when he was eventually asked to resign due to "budget constraints".<ref>George Gendron, "[http://www.inc.com/magazine/19960701/1721.html Dilbert Fired! Starts New Biz]", Inc.</ref>

Adams published a piece on his blog in March 2012 seemingly defending [[Rush Limbaugh]]'s calling [[Sandra Fluke]] a "slut" for her advocacy of mandatory inclusion of [[contraception]] in employer insurance plans.<ref name="adams-limbaugh">Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20120308001718/http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_limbaugh_fluke The Limbaugh Fluke]", Scott Adams Blog</ref> In the piece, he stated, "My interpretation of events is that Limbaugh saw Fluke as a capable adult, and a public figure, tough enough to handle some harsh language."<ref name="adams-limbaugh" /> In 2015, he revisited the subject of women's opinions, writing that men talking over women in meetings is inevitable, as women are more likely to be interrupted because they are "more verbal than men," and "anyone who talks too long without adding enough value" is fair game.<ref name="terrorist1">Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20151119221810/http://blog.dilbert.com/post/133406477506/global-gender-war Global Gender War]", Scott Adams Blog</ref>

===Male sexuality and consent===
In June 2011, Adams posted a piece on his blog that "society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable," with men's "natural instincts" apparently representing [[Rape|a desire to "act like unrestrained horny animals."]]<ref name="adams4">Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20110618122953/http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/pegs_and_holes Pegs and Holes]", Scott Adams Blog</ref>

In November 2015, Adams published a similar piece on his site, lamenting how [[sex]] was not a guaranteed reward for being nice to women and that [[rape apologist|"access to sex" requires consent]]:

{{quotebox|When I go to dinner, I expect the server to take my date’s order first. I expect the server to deliver her meal first. I expect to pay the check. I expect to be the designated driver, or at least manage the transportation for the evening. And on the way out, I will hold the door for her, then open the door to the car.

When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman. If the woman has additional preferences in terms of temperature, beverages, and whatnot, the man generally complies. If I fall in love and want to propose, I am expected to do so on my knees, to set the tone for the rest of the marriage.<ref name="terrorist1" /><ref name="terrorist2">"[http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/11/21/scott-adams-we-live-in-a-matriarchy-because-men-have-to-get-permission-for-sex/ Scott Adams: We live in a matriarchy because men have to get permission for sex]", ''We Hunted the Mammoth''</ref>}}

Adams further argued in the piece that males have such an uncontrollable need for sex that [[Incel|being denied it]] inevitably leads them to [[suicide]] and violence:

{{quotebox|While I'm being politically incorrect, let me describe to you the mind of a teenage boy. Our frontal lobes aren't complete. We don't imagine the future. Our bodies want sex more than we want to stay alive. Literally. Lonely boys tend to be suicidal when the odds of future female companionship are low.

So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn't [[religion]] that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I'm not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I'm designed that way. I'm a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.<ref name="terrorist1" /><ref name="terrorist2" />}}

He also contended that the United States is a "female-dominated country" and a "matriarchy," in contrast to "[[DAESH]]-held territory" in the indisputably male-dominated [[Islam]]ic [[Middle East]], where he claimed, "top-ranked men have multiple wives and the low-ranked men either have no access to women, or they have sex with captured slaves."<ref name="terrorist1" /><ref name="terrorist2" /> He suggested that the way to stop DAESH is to tell potential recruits that, while "killing infidels" will net them "[[houri|virgins in heaven]]," killing the leaders "holding the leash on [their] balls" will grant them instant access to actual human women.<ref name="terrorist1" /><ref name="terrorist2" />

===Hillary kicked men in the balls===
In June 2016, Adams posted a piece on the [[2016 U.S. presidential election|2016 U.S. presidential race]] on his blog, writing that the "biggest unreported story" of the election cycle was the "humiliation of the American male". As evidence of this rampant [[misandry]], he cited a dishwasher detergent [[Advertising|ad]] featuring the stereotypical bumbling, housework-inept husband, who just so happened to be wearing a V-neck sweater. According to Adams, V-neck sweaters are "the uniform of a man who is owned by a woman," and he threw out about twenty-five such sweaters given to him as gifts by women trying to turn him into a [[beta]] [[cuck]]. Apparently, Adams saw the scourge of cleaning product ads and V-neck sweaters as portending the "largest male turnout of any presidential election in American history," and thus the election of [[Donald Trump]] over [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref name="hillary1">Scott Adams, "[https://archive.ph/DrTgL The Humiliation of the American Male in 2016]", Scott Adams Blog</ref>

Adams followed this up in July 2016 with a piece arguing that the Democratic National Convention represented a "celebration that [men's] role in society is permanently diminished." As he explained, the convention, featuring the first female presidential candidate for a major party, was held in an "impressive venue that was, in all likelihood, designed and built mostly by men," and that "men [got] to watch it all at home, in homes designed and built mostly by men, thanks to the [[technology]] that was designed and built mostly by men."<ref name="hillary2">Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20160728174407/http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148050318231/selling-past-the-close Selling Past the Close]", Scott Adams Blog</ref>

This affront to men was so severe that Adams suggested, quite seriously, that watching the DNC had tanked men's testosterone and made them miserable:

{{quotebox|I watched singer Alicia Keys perform her song Superwoman at the convention and experienced a sinking feeling. I'm fairly certain my testosterone levels dropped as I watched, and that's not even a little bit of an exaggeration. Science says men's testosterone levels rise when they experience victory, and drop when they experience the opposite. I watched Keys tell the world that women are the answer to our problems. True or not, men were probably not feeling successful and victorious during her act.

Let me say this again, so you know I'm not kidding. Based on what I know about the human body, and the way our thoughts regulate our hormones, the Democratic National Convention is probably lowering testosterone levels all over the country. Literally, not figuratively. And since testosterone is a feel-good chemical for men, I think the [[Democrat]]ic convention is making men feel less happy. They might not know why they feel less happy, but they will start to associate the low feeling with whatever they are looking at when it happens, i.e. Clinton.<ref name="hillary2" />}}

Nonetheless, Adams made a point of stating that he was endorsing Clinton "for [his] personal safety," as he was convinced "[his] safety [was] at risk if I [was] seen as supportive of Trump."<ref name="hillary3">Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20160606045431/http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-president-of-the-united-states My Endorsement for President of the United States]," Scott Adams Blog</ref> On the other hand, Trump supporters did not represent a threat in Adams' estimation since they apparently "don't have any bad feelings about [[Patriotism|patriotic]] Americans such as [himself]."<ref name="hillary3" /> Adams predicted ([[stopped clock|correctly]]) that Trump would win.<ref name="hillary3" /> He stated that he didn't plan on voting, as his views didn't align with either candidate and he wanted to "[[Balance fallacy|protect [his] objectivity]]."<ref name="hillary2" />

It was all a lie, though. Following Trump's election, Adams showed he had a raging hard-on for Trump.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20180807043955/https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1025149648929996800 Today I had the honor of meeting your favorite president. I already feel sorry for whoever runs against him in 2020. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump] by Scott Adams (3:41 PM - 2 Aug 2018) ''Twitter'' (archived from August 7, 2018).</ref>

==Racism==
In a June 28, 2020 tweet, Adams made the following comment in the wake of the [[Black Lives Matter]] movement: {{Quotebox|"I lost my TV show for being white when UPN decided it would focus on an [[African-American]] audience. That was the third job I lost for being white. The other two in corporate America. (They told me directly.)"}}

To which Brianna Wu replied: "Maybe that’s more on you than them for creating such an overwhelmingly white cast of characters."

However, in a 2006 interview, he explained the show's cancellation this way: {{Quotebox|It was on UPN, a network few people watch. And because of some management screw-ups between the first and second seasons the time slot kept changing and we lost our viewers. We were also scheduled to follow the worst show ever made, Shasta McNasty. On TV, your viewership is 75% determined by how many people watch the show before yours. That killed us."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200707203558/https://www.cbr.com/twitter-drags-scott-adams-dilbert-cancellation-reverse-racism/ CBR.com: "Twitter Drags Scott Adams' Claim Dilbert Cancellation Was Reverse-Racism"]</ref>}}

Adams later engaged in a Twitter argument with comic book artist Bill Sienkiewicz, during which Sienkiewicz suggested they have a drawing challenge for charity. ''Birds of Prey'' writer Gail Simone suggested the challenge benefits Black Lives Matter. In a now-deleted Tweet, Adams stated, "I wouldn't give to a violent, racist group like BLM, but more importantly not the least in interacting with you."

Sienkiewicz later posted on [[Facebook]]: {{Quotebox|So… the draw-off with Scott 'Dilbert' Adams apparently isn’t happening.
He made it pretty clear on Twitter this AM. He got no interest. Racist’s gotta racist, Irredeemable bag of shit’s gotta Irredeemable bag of shit. I shouldn’t be surprised. To everyone who said ITYS, duly noted. Me and my silly 'olivey-branchy, bridgey-buildy, let’s have a dialog & transcend this divide' nonsense. Of course, I will probably try to do it again sometime. Because I’m the winning trifecta of both stubborn AND stupid.
Also, [[Poland|Polish]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200706194755/https://www.cbr.com/dilbert-creator-bill-sienkiewicz-challenge-black-lives-matter-racist/ CBR.com: "Dilbert Creator Declines Bill Sienkiewicz's Challenge, Declares BLM Racist"]</ref>}}

In late February 2023, an ill-advised Rasmussen poll that asked, [[Quote mining|without any context]], on agreement with the phrase "[[It's Okay to Be White|It’s ok to be white]]".<ref name=parker>[https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/dilbert-17805004.php Bay Area cartoonist who created Dilbert goes on racist rant, draws condemnation] by Jordan Parker (Feb. 24, 2023; Updated: Feb. 25, 2023 9:08 a.m.) ''The San Francisco Chronicle''.</ref> 72% of all respondents agreed with the statement compared with 26% of Black respondents.<ref name=parker/> Respondents had not been informed that the phrase is considered [[hate speech]] and was devised by [[4chan]].<ref>[https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/its-okay-be-white It's Okay To Be White] ''Anti-Defamation League''.</ref> One could conclude that White people are less likely to recognize coded hate speech because they are less often the target of it than Black people, but Adams instead went on a racist rant against Black people on his [[YouTube]] channel:

{{quotebox|If nearly half of Blacks are not OK with white people — according to this poll, not according to me, according to this poll  — uh that’s a hate group. That’s a hate group and I don’t wanna have anything to do with ‘em. And I would say the best advice I could give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people.<ref name=parker/><ref name="scottracistyoutube">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6TnAn7qV1s "Episode 2027 Scott Adams: AI Goes Woke, I Accidentally Joined A Hate Group, Trump, Policing Schools"]by Scott Adams, Real Coffee With Scott Adams, YouTube, 2022 Feburary 22</ref>}}

In the same YouTube rant, Adams [[cherry picking|cherry picked]] examples of the [[black brute]] stereotype by declaring that he was "really sick of seeing video after video of Black Americans beating up non-Black citizens," insisting that "every damn day" he sees a clip of "some Black person beating the shit out of some white person."<ref name="scottracistyoutube/><ref>[https://www.thedailybeast.com/dilbert-cartoonist-scott-adams-tells-white-people-to-get-the-fuck-away-from-black-people "Fully Unhinged ‘Dilbert’ Guy Tells White People to ‘Get the Fuck Away’ From Black People"] by Justin Baragona, Daily Beast, 2023 February 23</ref> Adams was presenting a severely distorted view of crime, because studies dating back to the 1980s have consistently shown that most victims of violent crime are attacked by perpetrators of the ''same'' race.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Is Violent Crime Intraracial?|url=https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/violent-crime-intraracial|last=Wilbanks|first=W.|year=January 1985|work=Crime and Delinquency|volume=31|issue=1|pages=117-128|quote=Data from the 1981 national victimization survey reveal that more whites are victimized by whites (77 percent) than by blacks (17.1 percent), and more blacks are victimized by blacks (77 percent) than by whites (14.4 percent).}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf|title=Race and Hispanic Origin of Victims and Offenders, 2012-15|publisher=U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics|date=October 2017|accessdate=12 March 2023|quote=In the majority of violent victimizations, white victims’ offenders were white (57%) and black victims’ offenders were black (63%).}}</ref> Also, it is fallacious to assume that the frequency of an event in popular online videos mirrors the frequency of said event in the real, offline world.

Although a few papers had dropped the ''Dilbert'' cartoon in the 2020s (due to, as one editor put it, the tone of the strip changing from "being hilarious to being hurtful and mean"),<ref name=parker/> generally speaking, until this point, Adams's increasingly toxic online behavior had not affected ''Dilbert'' syndication significantly. However, calling all Black people a hate group was the final straw for many newspapers. Multiple newspapers responded to Adams's racist rant by immediately pulling ''Dilbert''; in addition, Dilbert's syndicator {{wpl|Andrews McMeel Universal}} announced that they would no longer work with Adams.<ref>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/02/25/dilbert-comic-strip-cut-by-publications-over-creators-racist-rant-heres-what-we-know/ "Dilbert’ Comic Strip Cut By Publications Over Creator’s ‘Racist Rant’—Here’s What We Know"] by Ty Roush, Forbes, 2023 February 25</ref><ref name="waposcottadamsracist">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/02/25/scott-adams-dilbert-canceled/ "‘Dilbert’ dropped by The Post, other papers, after cartoonist’s racist rant"] by Thomas Floyd and Michael Cavna, Washington Post,2023 February 25</ref><ref>[https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-business-d1d88fe02461930d9c2ad70e1f55b136 "Dilbert distributor severs ties to creator over race remarks"] by David A. Lieb, AP News, 2023 February 27</ref>

Predictably, Adams followed up this video with a typical strange deflective rant, where he attempted to redefine racism as any interaction between races whatsoever, and in particular ranted about corporate employment equality efforts as "racist" for some reason.<ref name="waposcottadamsracist"/><ref>[https://www.thedailybeast.com/dilbert-author-scott-adams-invokes-mike-pence-to-explain-racist-rant "‘Dilbert’ Author Invokes Mike Pence to Explain Racist Rant"] by Kelly Weill, Daily Beast, 2023 February 25</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aaBpfVS2ig "Episode 2029 Scott Adams: I'm Trending On Twitter. Was It Something I Said?"] by Scott Adams, Real Coffee with Scott Adams, YouTube, 2022 February 24</ref> 

In early March 2023, Adams further dug himself into the hole he had made with an interview with {{wpl|Chris Cuomo||.}} In the interview, Adams dismissed the very possibility that any Black person could have been offended by what he said, despite widespread criticism of Adams's remarks from many, including multiple Black cartoonists.<ref>[https://apnews.com/article/dilbert-scott-adams-cartoonists-respond-109cb1a6dea03e931e2e6e3814bc743a "Cartoonists criticize ‘Dilbert’ creator over racist remarks"] by Mark Kennedy, AP News, 2023 March 6</ref><ref name="adamscuomo">[https://www.mediaite.com/tv/scott-adams-claims-black-america-is-actually-completely-fine-with-his-racist-comments/ "Scott Adams Claims ‘Black America Is Actually Completely Fine’ with His Racist Comments"] by Michael Luciano, MediaIte, 2023 March 6</ref> Adams also used his super genius IQ to complain about "anti-white" bias via a string of semi-nonsensical [[Republican]] [[propaganda]] bullet points. ("Social media shows an anti-Whiteness bias. Businesses do, [[Socially responsible investing|ESG,]] [[critical race theory|CRT]], [[DEI]], all these corporate and government things.")<ref name="adamscuomo"/> Adams also weakly and implausibly tried to excuse his racism by claiming that he was "[[edgelord|intentionally courting controversy]]".<ref>[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scott-adams-dilbert-racism-whites_n_6406c903e4b079d3eb5dbbb3 "'Dilbert' Creator Digs Deeper Hole With Wild New Claim About 'Black America'"] by Josephine Harvey, Huffington Post, 2023 March 7</ref>

==Online sockpuppetry==
{{cquote|Despite becoming a famous, wealthy cartoonist, Adams’ ego was still so fragile, so inflated, that he spent precious time on [[Earth]] defending himself on virtual message boards using sock puppet accounts, leading to widespread mockery.|||Ariana Bindman<ref name=bindman>[https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/scott-adams-dilbert-trump-21345626.php In the 1990s, he made millions off 'Dilbert.' Then, he discovered Trump. Uncovering the strange, forgotten story of the Dilberito, Scott Adams' horrific frozen food venture] by Ariana Bindman (Feb 12, 2026) ''SFGate''.</ref>}}
In 2011, Adams admitted that he had used a [[sockpuppet]] account called "plannedchaos" to defend himself in a MetaFilter discussion criticizing a piece he wrote for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.<ref name="williams">Mary Elizabeth Williams, "[http://www.salon.com/2011/04/19/scott_adams_sock_puppetry_scandal/ Dilbert creator's ever-worsening P.R. crisis]", Salon</ref> As "plannedchaos," Adams wrote, "he [Adams] has a [[Dunning-Kruger effect|certified genius I.Q.]], and that's hard to hide," and asked detractors, "Is it Adams' enormous success at self-promotion that makes you jealous and angry?"<ref name="williams" /> On his blog, Adams defended this act of self-aggrandizement, stating, "Conflict of interest is like a prison that locks in both the truth and the lies. One workaround for that problem is to change the messenger. That's where an alias comes in handy. When you remove the ''appearance'' of conflict of interest, it allows others to listen to the evidence without judging."<ref name="adams5">Scott Adams, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20110421130209/http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/planned_chaos/ Planned Chaos]", Scott Adams Blog</ref> It must not have occurred to him that engaging in sockpuppetry is, almost by definition, adding an ''actual'' conflict of interest to the discussion.

==Views on SJWs==
{{main|Social justice warrior}}
<gallery mode="packed" widths="450px" heights="140px">
File:Dilbert-2016-06-15.gif
File:Dilbert-2016-06-16.gif
</gallery>

==Advocating child on child murder==

In a May 2022 tweet, he suggested a "[[thought experiment]]" where it would be legal for [[children]] to murder other children that pissed them off.

"If we made it legal for kids to kill their bullies, a lot of problems would go away. We'd create new problems, sure. [[Just_asking_questions|But how could those new problems be worse?]] This is a thought experiment, not a recommendation."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20220819025242/https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1529793960276742144 If we made it legal for kids to kill their bullies, a lot of problems would go away. We'd create new problems, sure. But how could those new problems be worse? This is a thought experiment, not a recommendation.] by Scott Adams (11:57 AM · May 26, 2022) ''Twitter'' (archived from August 19, 2022).</ref>

However, the idea that this is a "thought experiment" falls apart when one observes that Adams was relying exclusively on argument by assertion and then couching it in barely tenable plausible deniability.

==Profiting from tragedy==
Just 3 hours after the 2019 Gilroy Garlic festival [[mass shooting]], Adams attempted to profit off of it by trying to sign up witnesses for a [[cryptocurrency]]-based app that he co-founded called Whenhub.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190729041037/https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1155679797223182337 If you were a witness to the #GilroyGarlicFestivalshooting please sign on to Interface by WhenHub (free app) and you can set your price to take calls. Use keyword Gilroy.] by Scott Adams (8:21 PM · Jul 28, 2019) ''Twitter'' (archived from July 29, 2019).</ref><ref>{{wpa|Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting}}</ref><ref>[https://gizmodo.com/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-uses-gilroy-mass-shooting-t-1836781947 ''Dilbert'' Creator Scott Adams Uses Gilroy Mass Shooting to Promote His App] by Tom McKay (July 29, 2019) ''Gizmodo''.</ref>

==Predictions from a stable genius==
It goes without saying that a [[Donald Trump|stable genius with a very high IQ]] who believed that [[The Secret|his thoughts could magically influence the universe]] also loved to predict things. After all, as a trained [[hypnosis|hypnotist]] (a factoid that Adams would ''frequently'' mention on social media and in promotions), Adams was, naturally, the only person on Earth who was qualified to comment on all knowledge known to man. All other people were, of course, just [[brainwashed]] [[sheeple]].<ref>[https://fortune.com/2020/09/27/donald-trump-self-hypnotism-politics/ "Donald Trump is a master of hypnotism. How he used the power on America—and then himself"] by Ralph Benko, Fortune, 2020 September 27</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1380152539249664000 "The only people qualified to have a rational opinion on the case at this point are trained hypnotists such as me. Everyone else is as brainwashed (via priming) as you are, including those you mentioned."], @ScottAdamsSays, Twitter, 2021 April 8, archived on 2021 April 8</ref>

On March 12, 2020, Adams predicted that before November 3, 2020, [[Bernie Sanders]], [[Joe Biden]], and [[Donald Trump]] would contract [[COVID-19]], and one of them would [[Death|die]] from it. This prediction failed miserably: Only Trump contracted COVID-19 during this period, and he quickly recovered after a hospitalization.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444 "The Worst Predictions of 2020"] by Zack Stanton, Politico, 2020 December 29</ref>

In June 2020, Adams announced to his readers, "If Biden is elected, there's a good chance you will be dead within the year." He added that "Republicans will be hunted".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200726015245/https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1278309835453284357 If Biden is elected, there's a good chance you will be dead within the year.] by Scott Adams (5:49 AM - 1 Jul 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from July 26, 2020).</ref> He also tried to connect Joe Biden's name to the [[Number of the Beast]]:

{{quotebox|Did you know if you took the capital letter J—just imagine the capital letter J in your mind—now think of the next letter in 'Joe.' It's an O. Now just move with your mind the O to the left until it's on top of the J. It's a backward six. Now suppose the next letter is the lowercase E. What does a lowercase E look like if you turn it upside down? Well, it looks like a six. So you've got the J and O together. If you combine them, it looks like a backward six. You've got this lowercase E that looks like an upside-down six, but that's just two sixes. Six​, six wouldn't mean anything, right? But the next letter is capital B for Biden, and capital B is where you hide your six.<ref>Allison Hambrick, [https://www.cbr.com/dilbert-scott-adams-joe-biden-hidden-satanic-message/ Dilbert Creator Says He's Found a Secret Satanic Message in Joe Biden's Campaign Slogan], CBR 28 Aug. 2020</ref>}}

Now that's totally not a [[shoehorn]]!

He then stated that the "iden" in Biden means identity, so under this totally-not-contrived logic, Biden's real name is "[[666]] Identity". This is on top of other [[bullshit]] shoehorning:

{{quotebox|Joe Biden is in favor of, what he said, ‘Bringing the light to the darkness.’ What is happening as he’s speaking? As he’s speaking and saying, you know, ‘bringing the light to the darkness,’ cities are actually on fire. California is on fire. So​, if you’re Satan, wouldn’t you expect that Satan would speak in terms which are true but misleading? Meaning that he will bring you the light, but there’s a catch: ​It’s fire, and it’s burning your stuff. That’s exactly what Satan would say if Satan existed.<ref>Jared Holt, [https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/trump-world-favorite-persuader-scott-adams-sees-satanic-coincidences-in-biden-campaign/ Trump World Favorite Persuader Scott Adams Sees ‘Satanic Coincidences’ in Biden Campaign], Right Wing Watch 26 Aug. 2020</ref>}}

Yes, because burning [[Fun:California|California]] is clearly on Biden's agenda.

{{quotebox|How many people or entities do you know who prefer to live underground? I can think of Satan living in Hell and—who would be another person who loves to live underground? Could it be basement-dwelling Biden? I only know two people who are famous for living underground. Can you think of even a third one? I don’t think so.<ref>Aaron Sharockman, [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/04/jason-miller/biden-isnt-basement-trump-campaign-keeps-saying-so/ Biden isn’t in the basement, but the Trump campaign keeps saying so], Politifact 4 Oct. 2020</ref>}}

This one is [[not even wrong]].

The only question is whether Adams even believed this batshit insane [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy]] or if he was trying to rile up [[Evangelical Christian|evangelical]] voters to get them to support Trump. Given his history and the use of some obfuscatory language like "if [[Satan]] existed", the latter was likely, which was still scary as it meant he knew what he was doing when spreading the nonsense.

Also, in June 2020, perhaps motivated by his previous correct prediction of the [[2016 U.S. presidential election]], Adams attempted to predict who would win the [[2020 U.S. presidential election|presidential election that year]]. Adams put "Trump’s odds of winning the election at 100%". He also predicted that "if Trump wins, there will be a second [[coup]] attempt".{{efn|The first "coup attempt", of course, was Adams' hyperbolic description of the first attempted [[impeachment]] of Trump, which was due to the [[Trump-Ukraine scandal]].}} Adams then complained about the "[[brainwashing]] (literally) of the political left", who (according to Adams) had been "programmed" by "[[propaganda]] outlets" pushing "[[fake news]]".<ref name="adamstrumppredict">[https://archive.ph/suB6K @ScottAdamsSays Twitter thread,] 2020 June 19</ref>{{efn|In the same [[Twitter]] thread with the incorrect 2020 election prediction, Adams also indicated that he was quite upset that the [[Black Lives Matter]] protests going on that summer were not [[authoritarianism|being put down by government force]].<ref name="adamstrumppredict"/>}} So, he thought Democrats remove their brains and physically wash them in the sink or something? (He did say ''literally''.)

Of course, [[Joe Biden]] won the 2020 election in November. Naturally, since Adams, at this point, was [[irony|thoroughly hypnotized by Trump]], Adams's reaction was to completely believe in Trump's [[2020 United States presidential election#Election denial conspiracy theories (and why they were stupid)|election fraud bullshit]] (even evoking [[Godwin's Law]] when coming up with some bizarre election fraud conspiracy theories on [[Twitter]].)<ref>[https://archive.ph/1KAqL "To believe Biden will be sworn in as president in January, one must believe at least one unlikely thing:"...], @ScottAdamsSays, Twitter, 2020 November 8, archived on 2021 Apr 8</ref>

On January 6, 2021, Adams's coup prediction ironically turned out to be half-correct when a ragtag group of Donald Trump supporters [[2021 U.S. Capitol riot|attempted a coup]] to stop Biden's [[Electoral College]] win from being certified. The riot's genesis was rhetoric by Trump, [[Rudy Giuliani]], and others at a political rally a few hours prior.<ref>[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/07/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-capitol-riots-mob-criminal-charges/6588112002/ "Could Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani face charges of inciting mob violence in Capitol riots?"] by Nathan Bomey, USA Today, 2021 January 7</ref> Adams, however, used his super genius IQ and hypnosis skills to deduce that blaming these people would be an entirely incorrect conclusion, sheeple. Instead, Adams concluded that the blame fell squarely on the [[media]]. Adams even parroted Donald Trump's [[Authoritarianism of Donald Trump|authoritarian rhetoric]]<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/18/trump-called-the-news-media-an-enemy-of-the-american-people-heres-a-history-of-the-term/ "Trump called the news media an ‘enemy of the American People.’ Here’s a history of the term."] by Amanda Erickson, Washington Post, 2017 February 18</ref> by calling the media the "enemy of the people".<ref>[https://archive.ph/8rLmU "Would protestors have stormed the Capitol building if we had a functional press that informed the public and considered all points of view? I doubt it. Trump isn't helping, but the press is pinning their flaws on him, and successfully. They are the enemy of the people."], @ScottAdamsSays, Twitter, 2021 January 7, archived on 2021 April 8</ref>

==Post-cancellation==
After ''Dilbert'' was yanked from newspapers due to Adams' [[racism]], he moved his operations to a subscription service on {{wpl|Locals||.}} While Adams continued to create a "spicier" version of ''Dilbert'' "reborn" on that site, his focus shifted towards "political content". His Locals subscription included several livestreams with "lots of politics" as well as a comic called ''Robots Reading News'', with a little bit of alleged [[self-help]] media content as well.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20240504071216/https://dilbert.com/faq Frequently Asked Questions,] Dilbert.com, archived on 2024 May 04</ref> His [[Twitter]] feed also increasingly focused on angry [[MAGA]] politics.<ref>[https://ghostarchive.org/archive/ok99u Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays)], Twitter feed, archived on 28 May 2024</ref> Examples include a tweet demanding that [[Republicans]] free the [[QAnon Shaman]];<ref>[https://ghostarchive.org/archive/u4MmX "Republicans need to shut down Congress until the Q-anon Shaman is released without charges or pardoned by Biden. We've seen enough. A line has been crossed. Close the government"], Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays), Twitter, 2024 March 10, archived on 2024 May 28</ref> a tweet in which Adams [[whataboutism]]-ed [[Vladimir Putin]]'s involvement in {{wpl|Alexei Navalny||'s}} death by complaining about the "[[2021 U.S. coup attempt|Jan6ers]]" who were "still incarcerated" and how [[Joe Biden|Biden]] supposedly was "trying to jail Trump";<ref>[https://ghostarchive.org/archive/KiIdI "It was clever for Putin to kill his critic in prison while the Jan6ers are still incarcerated and Biden is trying to jail Trump.America will have to sit this one out. We have no moral authority. We also have no leader that we can identify. Is it Jill?"], Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays), Twitter, 2024 February 16, archived on 2024 May 28</ref> and many rants blaming [[Democrats]] (and many other [[wingnut]] boogeymen) for essentially every ill on the planet.<ref>[https://ghostarchive.org/archive/HmPZa "Democrats have given us... The ADL to destroy free speech. Teachers Unions to destroy education. No bail, fewer police to destroy retail and cities. Climate alarm to destroy our energy sector. Activists to destroy our domestic nuclear energy future. Bad judges (J6 outcomes) to destroy the credibility of our judicial system. Fake News to destroy patriotism and replace it with division. Pandemic mandates to destroy our mental health and the future of our children. Ukraine War to destroy whatever is left of us. You have to respect the thoroughness of it all."], Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays), Twitter, 2023 September 6, archived on 2024 May 28</ref> From time to time, Adams's tweets also demonstrated an inability to detect whether or not a retweet he was posting was actually [[fake news]].<ref>[https://ghostarchive.org/archive/1pdUw "Hawaii is ten minutes from turning Republican.",] Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays), Twitter, 2023 August 22, archived on 2024 May 28</ref>

Adams's racism and incredibly blatant [[misogyny]] also continued. In one Twitter post, Adams "whitesplained" to [[African-American|Black]] American men that the way to "increase (their) odds of success" was to "copy [[Republicans]]", as (according to Adams for some reason) apparently only Republicans "have developed a mindset and a set of traditions that have always worked, no matter who uses the methods".<ref name="sareality"/>

Adams made several posts disparaging [[DEI]], even though he had zero clue on what DEI actually was. For Adams, "DEI" was a [[snarl word]] that he used to denigrate women and minorities. For instance, in one tweet, he blamed "the DEI debacle" on "batshit crazy white women who don't know how anything works outside the female experience". He then proceeded to call [[liberal]] women "mentally ill".<ref name="sareality">[https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2024/03/30/scott-adams-reality/ "Scott Adams’ Reality"], Daily Cartoonist, D. D. Degg, 2024 March 30</ref> In a January 2024 tweet, in relation to the {{wpl|standoff at Eagle Pass||,}} Adams bizarrely blamed "everything wrong with" the United States on a "dysfunctional mating system (marriage)" which, according to Adams, was all the fault of "women (becoming) batshit crazy, staring to defend DEI and open borders and anything else that increases the odds of women being around additional sperm."<ref>[https://boingboing.net/2024/01/26/dilbert-cartoonist-says-everything-wrong-with-the-country-is-due-to-batshit-crazy-womens-desire-for-additional-sperm.html "Dilbert cartoonist says "everything wrong with the country" is due to "batshit crazy" women's desire for "additional sperm""] by Mark Frauenfelder, Boing Boing, 2024 January 26</ref><ref>[https://uproxx.com/viral/scott-adams-sperm-rant-border-crisis/ "The Guy Who Created Dilbert Sure Does Have A Lot Of Opinions About Sperm"] by Mike Redmond, Uproxx, 2024 January 26</ref>

Like many hypnotized by [[MAGA]], Adams continued to believe [[Donald Trump]]'s [[Big Lie]] and maintained that the [[2020 U.S. presidential election]] was rigged. In March 2024, when Adams falsely suggested that US "election systems are not fully auditable and lots of stuff goes 'missing' the day after the election", the Republican {{wpl|Maricopa County Recorder's Office|Recorder of Maricopa County}} Stephen Richer [[Fun:Pwned|PWNED]] Adams' genius IQ by explaining that US elections actually ''were'' fully auditable, and gave some information on the ''actual'' process officials use for auditing elections.<ref>[https://www.rawstory.com/scott-adams-2667424991/ "Trump-loving Dilbert creator schooled by Republican official on election security"] by Brad Reed, Raw Story, 2024 March 4</ref>

==Adams' rebuttal of his RationalWiki page==
When directed to his [[Rationalwiki]] page on [[Twitter]], Adams [[handwaved]] away his well-documented asshattery, claiming it was all taken [[Quote mining|out of context]].

[[File:Confusing.png]]

==See also==
*[[Ben Garrison]]
*[[Larry Pickering]]
*''[[Mallard Fillmore]]''
*''[[Billy the Heretic]]'', "''Dilbert'' for White Nationalists"

==External links==
*[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-W_DvNZoIW1433DrLBQHUQ/videos His YouTube]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20150227171016/http://blog.dilbert.com/ His blog]
*[http://dilbert.com/ Dilbert's website]
*[https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays His Twitter]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note|2}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Adams, Scott}}
[[Category:2020 election denialists]]
[[Category:Alt-lite]]
[[Category:Alternative medicine promoters]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Bloggers]]
[[Category:California]]
[[Category:Cartoons and comics]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Crank magnetism]]
[[Category:Denialists]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Global warming denialists]]
[[Category:Holocaust denialists]]
[[Category:Internet kooks]]
[[Category:Men's rights movement]]
[[Category:Political pundits]]
[[Category:Pissed at us]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]
[[Category:Racists]]
[[Category:Sexists]]
[[Category:Shysters]]
[[Category:Trumpism]]
[[Category:War on science]]

Categories: 2020 election denialists, Alt-lite, Alternative medicine promoters, Authors, Bloggers, California, Cartoons and comics, Conspiracy theorists, Crank magnetism, Denialists, Evolution, Global warming denialists, Holocaust denialists, Internet kooks, Men's rights movement, Political pundits, Pissed at us, Pseudoscience promoters, Racists, Sexists, Shysters, Trumpism, War on science