[listenallyall]

Pretty easy to take pot shots at a dead guy who lacks the ability to punch back. Especially when the dead guy hosted a daily show and would have been thrilled to have him come on and debate! Why didnt Mr Codex get around to stating his opinion re: Adams for the past 10 years?

[muzani]

Seems like he's just quoting Adams himself. Adams was popular for his self-deprecating humor.

Adams used to tell people the secret to success was being in the top 25% at multiple things - he could draw and he could make corporate jokes, but he was not exceptional in either of those things. It's not really a pot shot, more of a tribute. He's still saying Adams was just below Leonardo da Vinci.

[listenallyall]

Less about the degree to which Adams was talented (which, as you note, Adams might agree), more about how much his books sucked and the ideas within them were ridiculous, arguing that Adams' claims regarding hypnosis were entirely bogus, and that gaining popularity as Scott Adams the blogger-slash-podcast host (as opposed to "Dilbert guy") "destroyed him."

[tombert]

For what it’s worth, I think a lot of people were pretty happy to shit on Scott Adams for the last decade.

I don’t know anything about Scott Alexander, but even well before Adams had cancer, there was a thread on Something Awful making fun of all the stupid weird shit Adams would say.

[listenallyall]

That's fine - the man was certainly not above being criticized, and he had plenty of flaws. Point is, do it while he's alive, don't wait until he's dead (especially when his death was not a surprise)

[trueno]

> Pretty easy to take pot shots at a dead guy who lacks the ability to punch back

if you read the piece he touches on this

[listenallyall]

As a reader, can you summarize what Alexander is referencing in the two quoted paragraphs that overcomes his initial doubt and decides "after his death is the best time to disagree"?

The only thing I can possibly see is Adams writing "the reader is supposed to be looking for flaws" but it's also clear that Adams is very interested in hearing people's reactions and responses to his work, which he (obviously) can't do any more.

[mcmoor]

Other has mentioned it, but I think it's worth quoting it directly for easier reference

> I previously felt bad for writing this essay after Adams’ death; it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond. These paragraphs cured me of my misgivings: after his death is by far the best time to disagree with Scott Adams.

Also I don't think this is a slander article only published after death so no one can answer. If anything I see this as a beautiful article from someone who (used to?) love him and it raises his image in my (not really cared about it before) mind.

[listenallyall]

a) my initial comment was a response to someone who called the essay "brutal." Indeed, there are some tender passages, but it feels like on balance, Alexander was more interested in getting his attacks in than the nicer stuff. In my opinion.

b) yes he tries to make an excuse for "curing his misgivings" and ignoring his initial doubt but it's an awful one. Can you succinctly describe what it is about the quoted paragraphs that would indicate "after his death is the best time to disagree"?

[_vqpz]

His response wouldn't have been anything beyond angry passive aggressive tweets.

Source: have been on the receiving end of a Scott Adams rage