Wingnut or not?
It looks as though he still doesn't like me after all these months. That's good. I'm surprised he even remembers. Given that Vox doesn't think women should have the right to vote because, according to him, they are "fascists at heart," I'd start worrying about myself if he ever started speaking highly of me.
I will concede one point, however. It may have been exaggerating a bit to refer to Scott Adams as a "wingut" just for his ill-considered comments about the evolution/ID conflict. Adams definitely appears ignorant and unable to evaluate evidence and judge which positions are more valid than others. But a "wingnut"? Perhaps I should have reserved judgment. On the other hand, Adams' nihilistic concept that no one who has a preexisting opinion or "a financial/career incentive" can be considered "credible" about an issue does flirt with wingnuttery. Such a position implies that Adams considers people who don't know enough about a topic to have formed an opinion and who have no professional connection to the issue at hand to be "more credible" than experts who have studied a problem all their lives. It's one thing to have a healthy skepticism about the claims of experts, but it's another thing entirely to dismiss all experts as "not credible" just because they have a preexisting opinion or because they make their living studying an issue. That's a simplistic and childish approach. Nonetheless, in the future, I should probably reserve the term "wingnut" for people to whom it truly applies.
People like Vox.