THE DISHMASTER

ENTERTAINMENT NEWS WITH A SIDE OF DISH

Dilbert Archive

Tuesday

12

April 2011

2

COMMENTS

Ashley Judd Apologizes For Hip Hop Insults — Still Talks Way too Much

Written by , Posted in General

I’m aware that the tile of this post is hypocritical, considering just how much I talk.  But there’s something called word economy, and Ashley Judd is without it.  She apologized for her recent insulting comments toward P Diddy, Snoop Dogg, and hip hop music in general.  I’m posting the quotes below, and I hope your head doesn’t explode while reading them.  Can’t the woman just say, “I’m sorry for those stupid comments.”  You’d think she was writing a PhD thesis.  I get the feeling that she carries around a dictionary and circles words she thinks would make for fancy sentences.  I’ll give Ashley Judd the same advice I gave Scott Adams.  When in trouble, use the least amount of words as possible.  Get in and get out.  Read below.

  • “The general theme is to express my gratitude for a chance to learn, to be corrected where I was wrong, to make amends, and hold firm and strong on the original intention and context of the points I made, with a commitment to try to do so less clumsily and with more sensitivity in the future.  I am also aware that, no matter what I do, some will call me disingenuous and impute bad motives to me.”
  • My equivalent genres, as an Appalachian, an oppressed and ridiculed people, would be mountain music and bluegrass. Those genres tell the history, struggles, grief, soul, faith, and culture of my people.  In imagining how I would feel if someone made negative generalizations about that music, I am deeply remorseful that anything I may have said in All That Is Bitter & Sweet would hurt adherents of genres that represent their culture. This book is an act of love and service. Insulting people of goodwill is the antithesis of its raison d’etre.

Sunday

3

April 2011

7

COMMENTS

Is Dilbert’s Scott Adams a Misogynist? — Maybe?

Written by , Posted in General

I’d like to begin this post by disclosing that on every standardized test I’ve taken, my reading comprehension score was very high. Having said that, I’m still struggling to understand the meaning of Scott Adams’ controversial blog post that caused an uproar amongst the feminists. To paraphrase this debacle, Adams wrote a post on his blog addressing the men’s rights movement saying:

“The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.”

When attacked, Adams removed the original post with no explanation, which reeked of guilt. He later wrote a lengthy post entitled, I’m a What?, which was meant to defend himself and explain the misunderstanding. After combing through this follow-up post, I confess that I have no better understanding of his argument, or what he was originally trying to portray. Personally, if I was accused of sexism and misogyny, you better believe I’d cut to the chase.  In fact, I might just say, “I love women” and be done with it. But Scott Adams is different. So here’s what I’ve made of my limited understanding. His original piece was meant to poke fun at the men’s rights movement, which he labeled as a ‘bunch of pussies.” But which part of that original post was a joke? You can certainly oppose the movement on the basis of there being more important things to worry about, while simultaneously believing that women are treated more favorably than men. Furthermore, when he addressed the feminist blogs that attacked him, he said, “I was also labeled an asshole, which I have come to understand is a synonym for male.” This is probably not the best thing to say when trying to worm oneself out of a mess — guilty or not. So what’s the moral of this long, tedious story? Either standardized tests mean nothing, or Scott Adams needs to be more clear when attempting damage control.