Scott Adams: “Rape and cannibalism are the same thing, and you’re stupid. And probably fat.”

If you follow the feminist blogosphere, you’re undoubtedly aware of the Scott Adams kerfluffle. Here’s the short, short version of the mini-saga: Scott Adams posted a brilliant analysis on his blog about rape and the natural instincts of men, a bunch of hysterical fat feminists overreacted and put together a whiny petition, and Scott Adams bravely and courageously cut through this swarm of stupid critics with responses that were filled with incisive wit and pithy language.

At least, that’s how Scott Adams views the situation. Others see it differently. I see a case where a popular writer created a navel-gazing blog post where he engaged in unintentional rape apologia (yes, I do believe it was unintentional), a group of survivors put together a petition, and the popular writer spent his copious amount of free time responding to each and every one of the criticisms, accusing his petitioners of slander. (At least, he started by accusing them of slander, but I guess someone told him that slander refers to spoken word and libel is the term for the written word, so he started accusing his critics of libel instead.)

I was one of the fat hysterical feminists that signed this whiny petition. As I read through Scott Adams’ responses to me and the other fat hysterical feminists that signed the whiny petition, I was struck with a realization: Scott Adams is acting like a Professional Troll! Let’s look at some of his most trollish arguments he uses to defend himself.

“Most people seem to agree that I should write for the lowest common denominator to avoid just this sort of misunderstanding.”
“I am misunderstood because stupid people don’t know how to read! Stupid people like YOU!”

“To you first point, even rapists know that rape is not okay. Perhaps in Crazytown, where you live, someone is being arrested for rape and saying, ‘Are you kidding me? When did that become illegal?’ But here in the world of the sane, it’s common knowledge that rape is a crime.”
“Common knowledge” that rape is a crime. Sure. Most rapists know that rape is against the law. What Scott Adams refuses to understand is that most rapists do not believe they committed rape, or alternately, believe that they are justified in committing rape. They use excuses like immaturity and cultural differences, “She was asking for it because she was dressed slutty,” situations “beyond their control,” “He’s a great artist and therefore has suffered enough!” Those are just a few excuses, and note that in the second link, this excuse was used effectively and the rapist went free.

How could Scott Adams have known this? Well, there’s a handy thing called Google. It took me longer to link to those articles than it took me to find them.

I also think a rape survivor, Lea Grover aka Supermommy, can put this better than I can:

“I can also promise you this, both of the men who assaulted me genuinely don’t believe they did anything wrong.  The fact that they wanted to have sex with me was just more important to them than any opinion I might have had in the matter.”

Chilling and moving.

“If I say the urge to eat is so strong in humans that the Donner Party resorted to cannibalism, it doesn’t mean all hungry people are barely resisting the urge to chow down on their friends.”
I am bowled over by the brilliance of this comparison. Just bowled. over. What an insightful analogy! There’s absolutely no way to pick apart THAT argument.

Except, you know, for the fact that people will die if they don’t get enough to eat, and no one has ever died from a lack of sex, and to imply that anyone, EVER, has raped someone because he was overcome with lust or lack of sex is extremely problematic.

Scott Adams does not understand this. He insists that he believes that rape is bad, and by calling something “natural,” he is not, in fact, excusing it. For the record, I believe him when he says he thinks rape is bad. What he refuses to understand is that RAPISTS WILL USE the “natural urge” argument to defend themselves, and sometimes, THAT EXCUSE WORKS. Even though he is against rape, he is using the same arguments that rapists use. And he refuses to see why that’s a problem.

I won’t even go into the fact that there are people in this world who identify as asexual and I’m fairly certain that zero people identify as “not hungry.”

“Based on my email, I’d say 90% of the people who read the original post understood that. 10% is about the same ratio that misunderstands literally everything I write.”
“People can make up statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of all people know that.”

“And like any bully, you’re not done until I ask you to hit me again with my own fist, which in this case means “confessing” to a non-existent crime, begging for forgiveness, and being extorted for money.”
Excuse me for a minute. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! *wipes away tear* Yes, saying, “I will not read your strip anymore” is TOTALLY THE SAME THING as saying, “GIVE ME MONEY!”

I have to give him credit, though. That argument made me laugh harder than any Dilbert strip from the past decade.

“You’ve become the thing you hate.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *takes breath* HAHAHAHAHAHA. Last time I checked, I haven’t become an entitled misogynist entirely too impressed with hir own importance, but thanks for the concern anyway, Scotty.

“I am flattered that you think people make important life decisions based on my blog. But I don’t think that’s the case.”
He wrote this comment in response to a person who wrote, “It shocks, pains and disappoints me greatly to see the creator of something I love spreading messages that will have incredibly harmful repercussions.” Scott Adams does not believe his words will have negative repercussions, because people do not make important life decisions based on his blog.

Let’s get this straight: Scott Adams, a professional writer, is arguing AGAINST the power of words.

Well, in that case, why is he so upset about this petition? I doubt anyone will make important life decisions based on that petition!

“I’m the victim of libel, which even my biggest critics now understand. And you are blaming the victim for sending the wrong signals.”
This is where I stopped laughing.

This person has the gall to respond to a petition, created by rape survivors, to adopt the language of anti-rape advocates to paint himself as a victim. How dare he.

How DARE he.

I put the “dammit (janet)” tag on my post about Donald Glover because I use the “dammit (janet)” tag to discuss disappointing decisions made by people I normally like. I considered using the same tag on this post because I did enjoy Scott Adams’ work at one time. I own five Dilbert books (all of which I paid for, before he accuses me of extortion or theft). But my level of contempt for Scott Adams is now so high that I can’t even make a “dammit (janet)” joke about it. Instead, he goes into the “troll” category.

Now, who wants to place bets on how soon Scott Adams will find this blog after Googling his name and leave a comment along the lines of, “Well, I don’t like you either! And so’s your face!”