Hacker News Reader

Comment by dangus | Hacker News Reader

Because you’re invested. You’re a Scott Adams fan.

As someone who likes the Harry Potter series, I hear you. It’s tough to see your idols fall into being dumbasses.

If you sincerely think Scott Adams had zero bias, that he’s not a bigot, that he didn’t support “stop the steal,” that’s on your conscience and your value system. I choose to believe the impulse of what he said, not the 30 minutes of damage control afterward.

I’d say nobody asked the guy his opinions on such subjects and just wanted to read his funny office comics.

But that’s what happens with celebrities like this.

View on HN

> Because you’re invested. You’re a Scott Adams fan.

Sure — but I wouldn’t be if I thought he was a bigot. Having listened to hundreds of hours of him explaining his views, I’m far better informed than people judging him from short, out-of-context clips.

> It’s tough to see your idols fall into being dumbasses

I don’t treat public figures as idols. I also don’t think disagreeing with prevailing opinion automatically makes someone a “dumbass.” Sometimes it means they’re willing to take reputational hits for what they believe is right.

> If you sincerely think Scott Adams had zero bias

Nobody has zero bias. That’s an impossible standard.

> As someone who likes the Harry Potter series

For what it’s worth, I think J.K. Rowling is an example of someone who did the right thing at substantial personal and professional cost, particularly in defending women and girls. That’s not idol worship — it’s acknowledging moral courage when it’s inconvenient.

> That he didn’t support ‘stop the steal'

This is where the argument seems to shift from racism to political conformity. Disagreeing with someone’s politics isn’t the same thing as establishing that they’re a bigot.

>> Because you’re invested. You’re a Scott Adams fan.

> Sure — but I wouldn’t be if I thought he was a bigot.

That's not how that works.

When your politics are bigotry, it isn’t a matter of “disagreeing with them.”

When your politics are anti-democracy and pro-fascism, it isn’t a matter of “disagreeing with them.”

Politics aren’t detached from real life, they aren’t some hypothetical. They have real consequences, and they represent real values.

Now I know where you stand. You follow every conservative talking point 100%.

You are playing the “I am taking a nuanced view, you’re just a sheep following popular opinion” card while you yourself are just doing the exact same thing on the other side with no nuance at all. You and I are at worst no different from each other in our belief systems.

Scott Adams was a Trumper, therefore you support him.

JK Rowling is anti-trans, which is the right wing party line, therefore you support her.

Good talk. You know where you stand, I know where I stand.

You’re treating disagreement as evidence of moral failure, then using that to retroactively justify the label. That’s not reasoning — it’s tribal sorting. You must exist in quite a bubble, a rapidly shrinking one.

You have the causality backwards. Your moral stance is abhorrent, therefore I disagree with you and want nothing to do with you. Not the other way around.

My moral stance is abhorrent to about 7% of the population who the other 93% want nothing to do with.

I'll get over it.

You've been listening to too much Fox News and Trump Truth Social posts if you think 93% of the population is bigoted racists.

You're making my point for me.

No, 93% of the population want nothing to do with extreme left wing socialist mob politics.

You can't dismiss other people's assessment of your politics just because they are different from yours. That makes no sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com