I have many critics. Perhaps you’ve noticed. Lately their ranks have swelled. Obviously I’m doing something right.
For example, my recent post about immigration has caused quite a stir on white supremacist web sites that are urging a boycott of all things Dilbert. Their argument goes like this:
1. We don’t understand satire.
2. We are superior!
My philosotainment posts about evolution, God, and atheists draw the most fire. The criticism I hear the most is “Richard Dawkins wrote a book that demolishes your argument. You should read it and learn something.”
I sure hope that’s true. I love the idea that somewhere there is an author who anticipates everything I think in the shower and then writes an entire book describing why I’m wrong. How cool would that be?
But I can’t reconcile the Richard Dawkins theory with my personal theory that I’m always right. Something has to give.
My best guess is that Richard Dawkins and I agree on all the big questions. It just seems like we don’t because my writing often triggers cognitive dissonance in readers who need to think of their world view as infallible. (This is also known as the “Dance, monkey, dance!” approach to writing.)
Let’s test the notion that Richard Dawkins has demolished all of my arguments. Name one thing where Richard Dawkins and I disagree. Keep it simple or I won’t be able to respond. Something like this would work best:
1. Adams says, “….”
2. Dawkins says, “….”
I suspect that any perceived differences will be caused by hallucinations of what I’ve said. The other possibility is that I’m a moron, since we all agree Dawkins is brilliant.
I’m a bit worried how this will turn out.