Home
Today Asok the intern came out. Tomorrow he'll have some things to say about the so-called government of India.

Cue the inevitable cries of "Stop being political! You're ruining Dilbert!"

Allow me to address that right now.

It's only political if there's someone on the other side of the debate. In this case, no one favors a government deciding which sexual acts among consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes are allowed and which are punishable by jail.

If I am wrong, and you favor the government restricting what kind of sex you can have with another consenting adult, please proudly state your case. I'm listening.

Cue cricket sounds...

 

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +190
  • Print
  • Share

Comments

Sort By:
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2014
no one favors a government deciding which sexual acts among consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes are allowed and which are punishable by jail. -- Scott

No one is questioning the existence of anti-gay sentiment. -- Scott

Are you just trolling now? After all the links posted about the laws in Africa, all the people in the US pushing for anti-gay laws, you're still claiming NO ONE wants the government to regulate sex acts? Not a single person in the teeming masses of humanity?
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2014
Bobby F:
Just so:
> - relationships between close relatives
There's enough medical evidence for the damage inbreeding does. You see it in animals and you have seen it in aristocats. Howewer, two gay brothers - who cares?

> - polygamy
There's a fine and fuzzy line between educating and cultural conditioning. I have absolutely no idea where one thing ends and the other starts. However, for instance two self-confident western women deciding to share one guy should not be a problem. Legal things need sorting out though. (Are they both married to him or to each other too? Can two men and two women marry into a quadruple? Important for inheritance. Stuff like that.)

> - !$%*!$%*!$%*!$%*!$%
Well - can't really say much about that, for obvious reasons...
 
 
Feb 9, 2014
While I agree with most of your statement, the "no one" seems to be a little bit overly optimistic. There are enough people in the USA who would like to control this. And in islamic and other christian countries this is most likely even higher. Not to mention India and Russia.

P.S.
What is your stance on polygamy? Or Incest? Obviously in cases where all involved parties agree? This most likely has in most countries a majority of people against it.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2014
[I should not be required to celebrate someone else's sexuality, whatever it is.]
And I should not be required to celebrate someone else's lack of sexuality, whatever it is.

And how do we get from "leave me alone" to me requiring you to celebrate sexuality?
Turn the channel. Don't watch that parade. Don't visit that website.
How does me getting my rights, get to me requiring you to celebrate sexuality?


[Everything seems to eventually devolve into the political these days, this zero-sum game where one side has to be totally right and the other side has to be totally wrong.]

I also see this, and I think the media, with it's endless, escalating, breathless "news" is part of the issue.

"This week, - Sochi: 30 seconds spoiling the prime time coverage for tonight, and 16 minutes of "oh my god, terror, terror, terror, something could happen. Oh nothing happened? Cut to Munich 1976 'Oh my god'".

Everything is presented as if it's happening to me, in my neighborhood, in my town. Oh, someone was killed (in the Congo) You are next! Be afraid! Watch our program! Meet the Press is no longer a news maker meeting the press, (being interviewed by the press), it's now David Gregory interviewing the press.

Everything is presented as a zero-some game, and everything is life and death, and everything is no compromise. Constantly competing for attention. Go to a PTA meeting, a school board meeting. Go to an HOA meeting.
It's turning into "I gotta get mine, now, (because it won't be there tomorrow if you take it first, or you will break our deal and I won't get my turn)".


Our next president needs to be the best hostage negotiator we can find.


Again the point was, no one is arguing, "I want the government regulating my bedroom activities."

Wait, I volunteer! I want the government regulating all bedroom activities. But it will require 5 years of study and 50 million dollars, and I volunteer to be in charge.

 
 
Feb 9, 2014
Scott, Indian court decision aside, I don't think you thought this one quite through. I think that if you try to apply your general case ("consenting adults") you'll quickly run into some sticky situations:
- relationships between close relatives
- polygamy
- !$%*!$%*!$%*!$%*!$% are all usually excluded from the general case ("consenting adults") under some flimsy pretext or other (women are not "really" consenting to polygamy, animals do not "really" like sexual acts with people etc.), but these pretexts are all unsupported by evidence that would be strong enough to mandate universal ban on the practice based on the absence of consent. In your view, should the above practices be allowed? Should they have a state sanction, as gay marriage is getting?

Instead, have you ever wondered if, just as being gay may be genetic, the revulsion most straight men feel towards gay sex may be genetic as well? I don't see how it could be otherwise, unless I have suppressed memories of being taken to a gay bar by my father when I was a boy, and my old man pointing at the patrons shouting "bad! bad!"?
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2014
Everything seems to eventually devolve into the political these days, this zero-sum game where one side has to be totally right and the other side has to be totally wrong. Scott's idea that this isn't political because he says so is quite silly - of course it's political; it's about a government and homosexuality. Doesn't get much more political than that. One can say no, it's a human rights issue - but that doesn't stop it from residing firmly in the political.

So what got me is that I read Dilbert to stay away from politics. Honestly, the world is awash in the flotsam of this hyper-politicized environ; I just like having a little corner of my life that I can escape from it. Selfish on my part. Scott is, of course, welcome to write about whatever he wishes and if he wants to get out of this little box and onto that soapbox, oh well.... I won't stop reading it and expect to keep enjoying it immensely as I've done in the past. It's really a great strip, this little detour notwithstanding..

Now cue sarcastic comments from Scott equating religion with magic.
 
 
Feb 9, 2014

[Hey, I don't come to your church and tell you how to believe in magic. But I admire your consistency in ignoring reality. -- Scott]

Squeeeeeeee!!!!!

Scott Adams - THE Scott Adams! - Took time out of his busy day to personally belittle me!!!! :D

(And yes, I am sort of proud of that. Probably something wrong with me. But never mind! :D )

In any case:

I just feel that you didn't use the opportunity presented by Asok's coming-out optimally. Obviously this is a tricky subject, and being as how I'm not a cartoonist, I certainly don't know how to do it.

But here's the thing - I have seen you do funnier things with material that seemed to carry less potential than this. In a roundabout way, my original comment was really a vote of confidence in your ability. . .
 
 
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2014
[No one is questioning the existence of anti-gay sentiment. That's like, um, the point. -- Scott]

I'm not questioning it either. What I AM questioning is your specific assertion that "no one favors a government deciding which sexual acts among consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes are allowed and which are punishable by jail".

I'd have thought the sources I cited would have demonstrated the inaccuracy of your assertion beyond any reasonable doubt: the news is filled every day with stories of African and Middle Eastern governments locking up or otherwise punishing their citizens for being homosexual. This clearly shows that they favor "deciding which sexual acts among consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes are allowed and which are punishable by jail" -- or worse. I don't understand how you could possibly conclude otherwise.

That being the case, the nature of your actual point seems to me to be anybody's guess, since your stated position is both incoherent and entirely at odds with the observable evidence.
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2014
Everything seems to eventually devolve into the political these days, this zero-sum game where one side has to be totally right and the other side has to be totally wrong. We can’t listen to what someone else has to say without resorting to vituperation or name calling, or worse. At college campuses, opposing viewpoints are shouted down; living in an echo chamber has to be a hollow experience. Me, I majored in political science, always loved the debate. And every question or statement worth making, is open to debate. Simple as that. But I’m old.

I've always loved comics too; this was just a bit jarring of a statement from a strip that - at the risk of generalizing here - most of us probably read because we just want to laugh at ourselves and our workplaces in a very general way, no barbed points really.. Honestly, I don’t want to know Asok’s sexual preference. Never cared, still don’t.

Scott may have made these sorts of points before, I don't know; I don't read every Dilbert. All I know is I wasn't expecting to see it here. Doonesbury, sure. Here? Not quite. And so we’re surprised to see an issue like this just thrown into the mix. Scott can claim that this isn't political because of some silly little debate-rule thing he's concocted in his mind, but since it involves a government and a hot button issue; it's political. This bit about "it's only political if" is a bit absurd - there is ALWAYS someone on the other side.

So for me the whole thing was just too far out of the blue. Again, being selfish here - I read Dilbert to get away from this kind of opinionated crap. Scott – and I know he will thank me for this – can do what he wants. It’s his strip and he’s obviously earned the viewers and loyalty. And if he wants to remove himself from this box and go off to another, again, that’s his thing. I just think it’s a bit of a political statement that we weren’t expecting from harmless little Dilbert.. er, Asok. I won’t stop reading it, and expect to keep enjoying it immensely as I’ve done in the past. It’s really a great strip, this little detour notwithstanding..

Now cue the sarcastic comments equating religion with magic from Scott..
 
 
Feb 8, 2014
Well, dismissing Scott's weaselly tactics, I think his purpose was to gauge our overall support. Shields on full and phasers charged might not be the friendliest posture, but I'm cool with the comics, and support Scott's overall philosophy on this topic and his way of expressing it.
 
 
+4 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2014
Scott,

You are not a bad man Scott.You have given the best part of your life to making people laugh. At least some of them all the time.

And now I read in the news that your state has a strong Indian lobby in the local politics.

Your sense of humor about India and Indians is jaundiced because you don't have enough first-hand knowledge. Steve Jobs spent a few years in the Himalayas and never spoke derisively about it again. You should give that a shot.

Come to India once. I'll let you hang out with as many gays as you want. No jail, I promise.

.




 
 
Feb 8, 2014
[I didn't declare victory. I declared that everyone was already on the same side. -- Scott]

...What? Seriously, I think its pretty obvious that thats not true for reasons that other commenters have made clear.
 
 
Feb 8, 2014
[Your pointless point is noted. -- Scott]

'Pointless'? Your point was that we should be scared of India having nukes and I was pointing out that scarier folks have had nukes. How is that pointless?
 
 
Feb 8, 2014
You seem to be under the impression that if some significant group of people hold an opinion, then someone who reads your blog does. That doesn't seem like a very reasonable assumption.

(Now it's your turn to call me a low-reading comprehension type for extrapolating a belief on your part based on the fact that I don't see how else this blog post makes sense).
 
 
Feb 8, 2014
I should not be required to celebrate someone else's sexuality, whatever it is.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2014
(The blanked out word below was "h@rd core", not actually hurling profanity at anyone. Maybe "devout" would have been a better choice).
 
 
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2014
Surprising number of people don't like the comic. So, the Dilbert readership must contain a significant element of:

a) !$%*!$%* Christians who dislike anything pro-gay rights for "moral" reasons. Seems unlikely - I can see Christians liking Dilbert in general, and there are a few Christians responding, but the blog is regularly all kinds of blasphemy and can't have a big following.
b) People really interested in the technicalities of democracy, and whether this represents some intrusion into the rights of India to self-determine. Let's go with no.
c) Those who are annoyed by a strip that's more political than usual, and maybe a bit less funny as a result. Possible.
d) Homophobes - possibly the "I don't have anything against gay people, but..." variety, who will use a)-c) to cover their own cognitive dissonance.
 
 
Feb 8, 2014
The strips don't even make sense - to commemorate the court decision, Asok will now be gay? Huh? And it is quite jarring that you seem to be trying to be political, even if what you said doesn't make sense.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2014
[I can.]
Is it sick or sad I found that very funny? Probably both.

[add editing capability to posts]
Please.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2014

Sen. Rick Santorum is the but of many jokes and ridicule in the LGBT-Q2GQIAASCP(GSM) communities.
If the only argument I read in this thread is,
"if you have the right to consensual sex within your home"
"...(then) You have the right to anything...."
So you can't have that right.

- Then I get to use that same reasoning against you.
If you get to ban my private behavior because it's "Icky" and for "public health" reasons, then I get to ban your private behaviors too. A woman having a baby, presents significant health risks to the mother. I get to start regulating your procreation.


>Sodomy is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy and should remain contrary to public policy.
>the body was clearly not designed for the uses to which homosexuals put it.
>The elevated risk of HIV/AIDS is reason enough all by itself to reject the normalization and legalization of homosexual conduct.
>So my second suggestion is that we take whatever public policies we have adopted with regard to IV drug abuse and use those same policies with regard to homosexual behavior. Again, one does not need moral reasons to support this; valid concerns for public health would be sufficient.
>"My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong," Cuccinelli told The Virginian-Pilot in 2009. "They're intrinsically wrong.

If you get to tell me what I can't do in my bedroom, I get to tell you what you can't do in your house of worship.

Don't forget you are not supposed to prey on the street corner, you are supposed to pray in the closet.

Stop being such a hypocrite.

The original idea was, no one is arguing the point, "I want the government regulating my bedroom". What I see, seems to agree.


*1 I don't know anymore, I stopped trying to keep up.
*2 Yes, intentional
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog