Scott Adams, Tucker Carlson, and the automatic out-group derogation of men

Scott Adams and Tucker Carlson have something in common.  They’ve both been accused of doing terrible things by very convincing people. It is also worth noting these convincing people were also credible, even though neither of these men had even met their accuser.

If you’ve never experienced what they’ve experienced, you couldn’t understand how that feels. In part because men are fundamentally flawed.

In my last series, I said some pretty terrible things about the male stereotype. ie, “Men are all the same, all of you have bad intentions, and you deserve everything you get, as you are the architects of your own misfortune” etc.

Even after saying all of those terrible things about your group, I’m pretty sure I can still persuade you that it’s the fault of men, as a group.

Why am I so convinced I can persuade men, that it’s all men’s fault?

Men do not have the mechanism for automatic in-group bias.

As an automatic out-group, men are representative of the male stereotype. By definition, they are the architects of their own misfortune, and they have bad intentions. They deserve harsher punishments and greater burdens, and any man who complains or protests this reality is weak, evil, or criminally ignorant. They are the bad guys from across the river; the automatic out-group.

I’d like to persuade you to that men, as a group, are idiots, who could learn some things from women, and we’d all be better off for it. I understand from my last article that some of you think, “Not All Men Are Like That.”

Let’s take a test.

If you are a man and believe you are somehow capable of exhibiting automatic in-group bias, take a look at a couple of videos. I’m going to ask you to look at them a couple of different ways.

What do you see when you watch this slow speed chase?

a) A man, pushed over the edge, whose cocaine addicted wife and the CA Family Courts endangered the lives of his children despite multiple attempts to get custody.
b) A man whose first degree murder trial was a clumsy farce, to everyone, who actually watched it beginning to end.
c) The black guy who got away with murder.
d) All of the above.

Now, watch it again.

What I did there was get you to see what Scott Adams refers to as “seeing a different movie.” When you watch this movie through a different lens, you may feel a different way about it.

What do see when you watch this movie?

Because men are an automatic out-group, other men will not make logical or ethical leaps to protect them unless there’s some additional tribal affiliation. As a result, when men are accused, facts are not persuasive. Fortunately, or unfortunately, facts do not affect how humans make decisions, especially when they’re under stress. We may be heading into a massive, persistent, international moral panic unless we can pierce the veil of out-group derogation with narrative and emotion.

Take for instance this Clarence Thomas video. I believe this video would be more far more persuasive to women than someone saying, “Anita Hill lied.” If you agree, please say why in the comments. As always, I try to respond to every comment.

Tucker Carlson and Scott Adams have both highlighted the plight of men and are persuasive for different reasons.

Tucker Carlson is both smart and funny.  Scott Adams is an expert on persuasion. I recommend his books on the topic, as he is a leading expert. I also suggest you subscribe to his podcast. He may hold the secret which will help us avoid a seemingly slow-motion, gynocentric disaster.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar