Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

meghanboilard.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 416 posts

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#121

Post by jjoonathan »

gingerrr wrote: post #88
selfmodruntime wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is being worried about society objectively changing for the worst - like excluding you for your gender or the color of your skin - conservatism? Wanting to be truly equal is progressive.

Because the definition of the word conservatism is "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change". If you're worried about society changing, there is no definition of the word "progressive" you fulfill unless it's your tax bracket. Words have meaning, even in the mouths of sophists.

So it was conservative to worry about the rise of Trump and the Alt Right?

It's conservative to wish Roe had remained on the books?

> Words have meaning, even in the mouths of sophists.

Indeed.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#122

Post by jwond »

romwell wrote: post #108
nmilo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who the hell said that was the real problem in academia, as if it was the only problem there? Are we not allowed to talk about a problem if some greater problem also exists?

> Are we not allowed to talk about a problem if some greater problem also exists? Being facetious, are we? Talking about petty nuisances related to trying to solve the greater problem while not even mentioning what the greater problem is usually an indicator that you don't see the greater problem as a problem . The greater problems being racism and transphobia in the context of this discussion.

No post body was provided.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#123

Post by jaywalk »

cnasc wrote: post #80
gingerrr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

....being worried about societal change is definitionally conservatism, did you mean something else by that?

The United States used to have a strong union culture in various industries, which has been worn down tremendously over the past century. Throughout that time many people in various places on the left end of the political spectrum have expressed their concern about that change. Is that conservatism?

No, they only call it that when it's an opinion they don't like.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#124

Post by rayiner »

ravenstine wrote: post #11
AinderS wrote: post #4

Simple. Workplace complaints and management priorities have changed, and Dilbert followed. When Dilbert started, the government wasn't yet training employees how to "interrupt whiteness" [1], or Coca-Cola how to "be less white" [2], or Cigna simply forbidding hiring whites [3], nor did academia require mandatory diversity pledges for new hires and promotions [4]. Dilbert is doing what we are told art is supposed to d…

It really makes me wonder what the common experience is for others not just in tech but Corporate America in general. I myself have run into anti-white and anti-male phenomena, unconscious bias pseudoscience training, diversity pledges, and so on, as have now others in my peer group. Dilbert's commentary has so far been entirely appropriate based on my experience, hence it's puzzling to me when people think there's s…

Calling these concerns “conservative” is a brilliant tactical play by progressives to use Trump-era polarization as a weapon against moderate liberals. Because nobody left of center wants to be associated with Trump, moderates will fold in the face of such criticism instead of push back.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#125

Post by HidyBush »

blueflow wrote: post #107
voakbasda wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had the exact same conversation with HR. Someone takes offense at something and they use it as leverage to suppress any further potential offenses, despite the fact that trying to avoid offending others is completely futile. Because once you accept that kind of policy, you become a target of abuse from others willing to claim offense at just about anything.

Dumb idea... what if you play the game yourself? They can't proof you are just pretending to be offended.

It's the first mover's advantage. When someone reports you everyone becomes suspicious and if you try to use the same tactics you get scoffed at and ignored.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#126

Post by languageserver »

CabSauce wrote: post #70
AinderS wrote: post #4

Simple. Workplace complaints and management priorities have changed, and Dilbert followed. When Dilbert started, the government wasn't yet training employees how to "interrupt whiteness" [1], or Coca-Cola how to "be less white" [2], or Cigna simply forbidding hiring whites [3], nor did academia require mandatory diversity pledges for new hires and promotions [4]. Dilbert is doing what we are told art is supposed to d…

You can cherry-pick examples of bad communication and bad policies all you want. But the fact remains that women and minorities are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to just about all aspects of life. The 'woke' problem pales in comparison to the actual problem. Complaining about things going too far isn't a good look when there are real, systemic issues remaining.

> But the fact remains that women and minorities are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to just about all aspects of life

Erasing women increases this

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#127

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

AinderS wrote: post #81
sofixa wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dilbert's commentary has so far been entirely appropriate based on my experience, hence it's puzzling to me when people think there's something particularly conservative about being concerned or critical about these societal changes Isn't it pretty much by definition (social) conservative ? > Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social instit…

You can do anything if you control the definitions: Ethno-nationalists want to progress into a world where conflict is avoided by clear borders between naturally antagonistic groups, while globalists want to revert to a time before clear nations and borders, to plunge the world into perpetual ethnic conflict, such as what happened in India and Africa after colonialists drew borders without regard for which groups liv…

This sleight of hand would work, if only it weren't for the constantly backward-looking statements on the part of the "progressors" in your examples.

The definitions are not the only thing that matter: how those who propose particular social transformation (or lack thereof) talk about those changes (particularly w.r.t. history or an imagined future) is just as important.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#128

Post by bena »

aldebran wrote: post #75
jacquesm wrote: post #38

He's gone off the deep end. I've seen the same happen with some friends and wrote about it, it's a sad thing when formerly intelligent human beings start losing it and fail to recover only to sink further and further into their own version of reality.

It feels like that started happening around 2014-2015. I genuinely wonder if he is afflicted with some mental issue. I stopped following him and the comics when he started blogging about how great trump was.

It might not be related, but wasn't there a period of a few years where he couldn't speak at all?

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#129

Post by maxsilver »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #64
kayodelycaon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of agree with this view. The problem I see Dilbert running into is the comic previously was aimed at corporate culture and specific jobs and stereotypes. In a way, it was punching up at more powerful, impersonal forces. Now, he appears to be punching down at people less powerful than him (individually) who have been fighting to get recognized. Despite these rather nasty policies governments and companies have…

> Now, he appears to be punching down at people less powerful than him (individually) who have been fighting to get recognized. I don't feel like this is true. The comic where one character identified as "white" isn't punching down at black people. There are no people of color who identify as white. He is punching up at insane corporate rules that make the color of a person's skin important when it comes to hiring: a…

> The comic where a character identifies as a "birthing human" isn't punching down at trans people.

Yes it is. It's literally The One Joke™, with a thin veneer of corporate policy wrapped around it as plausible deniability.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#130

Post by a4a4a4a4 »

gingerrr wrote: post #88
selfmodruntime wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is being worried about society objectively changing for the worst - like excluding you for your gender or the color of your skin - conservatism? Wanting to be truly equal is progressive.

Because the definition of the word conservatism is "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change". If you're worried about society changing, there is no definition of the word "progressive" you fulfill unless it's your tax bracket. Words have meaning, even in the mouths of sophists.

> If you're worried about society changing, there is no definition of the word "progressive" you fulfill unless it's your tax bracket.

If you saw the "progressive" movement take a turn toward something you consider immoral, like say, eugenics, would you consider yourself non-progressive for opposing it?

Or does "progressive" include some kind of moral judgement, which leads to a "no true Scotsman" situation, where "only social changes which I personally consider morally good can be considered progressive, anything else is conservative or regressive"?

Post reply on HN