[sanity]

> Most non-racists don’t need to spend 30 minutes on cable news explaining themselves to save face.

Most people never get interviewed on cable news at all, so that’s not a meaningful baseline. When someone is publicly accused, explaining yourself publicly is a predictable response, not evidence of guilt.

> Saying something publicly is an action. You can’t take it back.

Of course you can clarify or correct yourself—people misspeak all the time. Whether that matters depends on whether listeners are interested in understanding or just in cancelling someone they don't like.

> Why do you feel the need to defend him?

Because I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of Scott Adams over many years, and I’m confident I understand his views far better than people judging him from short, out-of-context clips.

I don’t get anything out of this except insisting that the truth matters. Even when the person involved is unpopular or dead.

[dangus]

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.

[sanity]

> 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.