Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
Scott Adams lost every ounce of credibility he had that one time he compared dealing with women's rights to dealing with violent handicapped persons.
|
Here's a good example of something I cannot stand about the current state of public discourse: a guy writes one piece that's disagreeable, and all other things he could possibly ever say are now moot. In this case, it's not even one thing he wrote, but as you suggest, one comparison within the piece.
I didn't know this existed, so I looked it up:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102881506316/im-a-what
Having now read that, I think the initial piece was simplistic to the point of being just... dumb. As a result, whatever his point was, he didn't make it. I'm still not sure what he was on about, or to what extent it was supposed to be satire at the expense of MRA's.
But ultimately I'd consider it a "bad thing he wrote one time"; it's not as if he outed himself as a Klan member. If he makes a well-put point on some other topic, this practice of dismissing it because you didn't like something he said once is the utter height of stupidity.
This, as I said at the outset, seems to be a pretty common tactic when addressing someone's views.