But I never even said I was male, did I? Nor did I ever say anything even close to suggesting that I give a rat’s ass about discrimination – be it against men, women, or those of us who are somewhere in between. On a personal level, or more generally. So my overall response to that is simply, “huh?”

In fact, I was explicitly suggesting that you read Adams’s argument more carefully. Specifically, the part where he says “I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people.”

And wasn’t all of this originally about that comment at the beginning of his original post? But that wasn’t even his point. His point was that he’s sick of hearing people whine about discrimination. (I understood that. But then, I don’t wander through life looking for things that I can claim offend me.) At some point – I can’t for the life of me figure out where – this became a discussion about discrimination and someone’s very specific notion of justice. I would hazard a guess that this transition took place about the same time Thomas realized that his criticism of Scott Adams made no sense.

In fact, to be honest, the entirety of this post sounds like an extended attempt to demonstrate one’s moral superiority in as many ways as possible, using as many words as possible. After reading the entire thing twice, I can honestly say I have no clue what it is the author is trying to say, other than (a) he is a better, more socially concerned person than Scott Adams, and (b) Groupon is also morally inferior. And it took him over 2,500 words (a significant portion of which was devoted to unnecessary profanity and name-calling) to make those points.

Of course, if one is dedicated to viewing the world in terms of gender, race, or whatever else is in PC-vogue at the moment, it’s relatively easy to scribble out page after page of sanctimonious indignation. We’ve come a long way in terms of recognizing individual rights at an institutional level. We’ve actually reached the point where we can afford to care less. Adams has chosen to take advantage of that. This doesn’t mean everyone has to.

It also doesn’t mean he’s any of the things you say he is (other than occasionally inarticulate).

“Telling it like it is” can potentially be a stand-in for an unsupported claim from anywhere on the political spectrum.

And then I remember, Dilbert has devolved from funny office geek comic into what amounts to “Family Circus, But replace the christian overtones with engineering jokes, and set it in an office”, I remember that he’s also a dead-set beliver in Affirmation – Not that he declares a lot of things true, I’m talking about The Secret with the serial numbers filed off – and some of the other ludicrous garbage he’s come out with over the years.

I’m no longer surprised.

Go back and read Adams’s original post. Then come back here, re-state what he was saying in your own words, and explain how your point logically connects to his.

Or, just follow your own advice and leave stupid alone.

Hardly confined to the right cf Tom Tomorrow.