It's so small.... I can't even find it.

File: tf2-alice-demoman.png (187KB, 622x929px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 622x929px

now i have dilbert and sex in the same part of my brain

A show too good for this world.

Dogbert: And as soon as I get finished taking over the world I'll place everyone in a little box with their name it

Dilbert: That's ridiculous! No one would ever stand for that kind of humiliation! Now get out of my cubicle!

Dogbert: Don't you mean cubicle?

>>89640991
I always imagined that his penis just looked like the top of his head, essentially ending in a fleshy anemone.

>>89642283
The show still holds up well despite the relatively recent revelation that Scott Adams is a total fuckjaw

>>89642283
So like most of those that live in California. The rest being the bullshit artist that promote it and get rich trying to sell people on forty year old wind turbine designs.

>>89642283
Now you know why I prefer content creators to be apolitical

You're just on the wrong side this time

>>89642283
wtf I hate Dilbert now

>>89642916

why does this meme exist? where are the wind turbine scam artists?

not in norway, where 50% of their power comes from wind alone.

>>89642283
I'm pretty sure Scott Adams believes in global warming.
He just thinks it's not important because we'll just adapt. (low of slow-moving disasters)

>>89644055
Artists pretty much have to be a certain level of driven enough that results in having a political opinion they'll gladly expound on. The key is to remember that twitter is a useless waste of internet,you should never go there, and that it doesn't make their content any less good (unless they're actually making their content less good shoving stuff in). And to remember they're people and perfection is beyond them. Unless they're doing something more than being annoying, it's best to just ignore their hot air.

>>89640991
>>89641166
YOU RUINED SEX FOR ME. FOREVER.

>>89642283
You really didn't understand the whole point of what he wrote, did you.

File: 1475770328463.gif (442KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 500x375px

>>89642220
I'll admit that was kind of funny.

>>89644426
>You really didn't understand the whole point of what he wrote, did you.
Here's what he wrote:
>I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation.
Which is exactly what I said he wrote.
He doesn't believe in climate change because he examined the evidence. He "believes" in it because of social pressure (meaning he doesn't actually believe in it)
>The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science either means the evidence is one-sided or the social/economic pressures are high. And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.
He's saying scientists are afraid to speak out against the consensus.
>Being a rebel theoretical physicist is relatively easy if your numbers add up. But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid.
He's saying climate science doesn't involve math. (What the fuck.)
>if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.
Basically he's talking out of both sides of his mouth: he "believes" in climate change, but he "knew all along" that it's a mass hallucination.

When you both DO and DON'T believe in something, you can't be wrong!

He's an asshole.

Anyone happen to have a web-dl/dvdrip folder? Been wanting to watch this for years now.

inb4
>youtube
No, I wouldn't ask for web-dl if I didn't care about quality.


>the creator of X has opinions I don't like, therefore X is shit
When will this meme end?

>>89645211
By the way, here he is explaining the exact same technique about abortions...
>Some subjects probably didn’t say “baby” when prompted, so the hypnotist takes another path. He asks them if they would blow up a building if they didn’t know for sure whether or not there was a living person inside. Of course the subjects say no.
>Then the hypnotist connects the dots. You can’t be 100% certain there is no “life” in a fetus, even at a few weeks from conception. It is unknowable.
>Some of you asked what method could be used to flip someone from pro-life to pro-choice. That’s harder because the emotional argument is heavily biased to one side. (You can’t top a dead baby-maybe.) And emotion is a big part of persuasion.

So his view on persuasion is so:
- appeal to emotions
- pretend things are "unknowable"
- the right side is the side that's more persuasive

This is shit science and shit policy-making. Some things ARE knowable. Emotions are frequently wrong. Being more persuasive doesn't make you right.

He's an asshole.

File: haha.jpg (8KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 259x194px

>>89640991

>>89641166
why did Kathy not want to get credited to voicing her?

>>89642220
I always forget tom kenny was in this

>>89645608
>appeal to emotions can be persuasive
of course

>the right side is the side that's more persuasive
when does he say that?

>>89645791
>appeal to emotions can be persuasive
You misread that, cumstain.

>>89645805
sorry, I don't know what you mean by "So his view on persuasion is so"

>>89645791
Well now I love good old Scotty but he does currently have a bias towards one side and it is pretty obvious. He tries to come off as "cold and rational" but it's clear he himself has a deeply seeded tendency towards one side.

Read his posts about "Trump leading and pacing the right to fight climate change" for an example of him being delusional.
Also when he describes him it feels like he's projecting himself in his position.

>>89645813
Scott Adams says that the side that is more persuasive is inevitably the winner (see:Trump)
He defines persuasion in a very deceitful and specific way (see: "It is unknowable")
By disregarding that some things can be decided independently of whether they're persuasive or not, he is being even more deceitful.

For example, "you can't know if a fetus is alive, therefore you're risking killing a baby" is persuasive, so abortion needs to be restricted. Or, "you can't know if climate change is really happening, so policies designed to prevent it need to be discarded." Make something unknowable, then defend the opposite position, preferably using appeals to emotion.

On top of that, if he's ever wrong, he can simply say (and he does say) that he was simply pressured into holding the wrong opinion. ("I believe in climate change because it would harm my career to profess otherwise, wink wink".)

This is very dishonest, deceitful behavior, but Scott Adams professes that it's right because the argument that is more persuasive will eventually win out, regardless of whether or not it's correct.

>>89645866
I don't know much about scott, i've only read his blog on assisted suicide so i know that he can get quite emotional
I just want to know how anon knows that he thinks that the right side is more persuasive

>>89645950
I'm reading the abortion piece right now, and it looks like he's just deconstructing a video where some guy persuades people with pro-choice positions to a pro-life position

he even says at the bottom that he has no valuable opinion on abortion

Most men are growers, why doesn't he try stroking it and think of his boss?

>>89645866
>He tries to come off as "cold and rational" but it's clear he himself has a deeply seeded tendency towards one side.
I think he's just cynical and doesn't trust people have their own self-interests anymore. I do the same. You can't help people that don't want to be helped, and that's most people.

File: c5f.gif (993KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 250x250px

>>89641166
>>89644343
this will never stop to be funny