Famous Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams admits that he was WRONG about…
while still clinging desperately to denial and a divisive paradigm.
Mark Crispin Miller is a Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. He is the author of several books and has a large Substack following.
Scott Raymond Adams is an American author and cartoonist. He is the creator of the syndicated Dilbert comic strip, and the author of several nonfiction works of satire, commentary, and business. (Wiki)
Sharing this from Cripsin Miller who just posted about Scott Adams' admission on Twitter that the covid (bioweapon) injections are a failure. Hopefully, this is a sign that the tide is turning, as Crispin Miller suggests. While it is great to see and quite magnanimous of Adams, I take issue with his tone and choice of words on three fronts:
First, the win / lose framing, like this was some kind of contest, is inaccurate and it trivializes the seriousness of the issue. In fact, jabbed or un-jabbed, EVERYONE lost more than we will ever be able to quantify or put into words, whether people know this yet or not. Adams does not yet understand that he is still in a Hegelian dialectic trap. He acknowledges that it is always wise to be distrustful of governments and big corporations, but does not see the ‘Power Versus People Paradigm’ yet. He does not know how far the continuum he is now on actually goes or where it leads.
Second, Adams is being sloppy by grouping and mislabelling all who declined or criticized the covid injections as anti-vaxxers. In doing this, he is falling for the trap that Power laid for us all when it abruptly rigged all the world’s major online dictionaries in unison with the newly contrived definitions of the terms vaccine and anti-vaxxer in the spring of 2021; a few short months into the roll-out of the now infamous shots. However, while technically inaccurate, Adams is ironically right, just not in the way he intended. It is not just the covid injections, which are, of course, a whole different beast altogether. Mark my words: vaccine skeptics will eventually be proven to have been right across the board.
Third, I strongly disagree with Adams' framing at the end where he says his analytics failed him, while our heuristics saved those of us who were early skeptics. To be sure, heuristics helped all skeptics, they must have done. They also hindered those who followed the mainstream narratives. But Adams’ statement implies that skeptics did not have analytics supporting our arguments, and this is flat out wrong. The correct (statistically safest) answers were relatively easy to find, heuristically and analytically, for those who were willing to suffer the social consequences of pursuing them. Case in point, MANY people from all walks of life, including those world renowned in relevant fields did exactly that: found answers, took risks, and tried to warn the world, so that many more of us could also find our way. But they and anyone who shared their concerns were all censored and silenced to one degree or another.
Analytics did not fail Adams. Other factors sabotaged his ability to think critically and to analyze. I sense Adams is still in the early stages of his awakening, that he has a lot more denial to overcome, and is in store for many more shocking revelations in the future. However, YES, this a big first step for him as an individual and the trajectory, given that he is an establishment figure, is good and helpful beyond the concerns of one man.
In other news, my recent post of Rebel News pummeling Pfizer’s Albert Bourla with questions has been updated to include a soft-ball interview with the bought and paid for mainstream outlet NBC of that same Bourla shortly afterwards. The contrast is extraordinary. It reveals all IMHO:
It's gonna be painful, this tide-turning. And folks can decorate up their explanations using anything they want - analysis, heuristics, etc. - but it's so much simpler and apparently harder to say. "I got fooled, I got suckered in, I thought I was too smart to be brainwashed." Any of those would be fine.
Because at the end of the day it was a mass marketing campaign to push the never tested on humans experimental jabs for an easily treated disease.
THAT's what is so easy to see and so hard to admit.
I agree with all three of your points, and I wanted to compare his statement to Sam Harris'. But…in watching him speak, I felt bad for him. He doesn't like being in the place he's in (a 'loser'). I suspect he's feeling something brewing inside him (or at least imagining it), and he's losing sleep over it, that's for sure.