What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert? • Hacker News Board

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#141

Post by allan_s » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

I still think it's AS funny (not necessarily funny, just not less, not more) . Dilbert has always been about making fun of thing Scott Adams may find absurd in corporate environment regardless of political correctness[0]

it's just that the article author reached the point where he thinks is serious is what Scott Adams.

It's the old "you can joke with anybody, you can joke about everything, you just can't joke about everything with everybody"

[0] https://dilbert.com/strip/2015-07-13 -> talking about owning slaves (and I didn't need to search far, just put a random year )

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#142

Post by the_doctah » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#143

Post by andrewclunn » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

Dilbert used to mock people I mocked and was funny. Now it's mocking me and needs to be cancelled! /s

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#144

Post by sterlind » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #48

CoastalCoder wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely a perception that people forcing diversity training, pronoun protocols, etc. are in positions of power over regular employees. Perhaps attacking people in previously marginalized groups is punching down, but attacking HR DEI enforcers is definitely punching up.

This is my take. Personally - I think Scott Adams is more than a little bit batshit insane, but I certainly don't think he's punching down in the strips presented here.

The issues themselves aren't punching down, but the way he's using the characters is. Imagine Alice deciding to falsely accuse the PHB of sexual harassment to get rid of him. Or Asok becoming a manager and only promoting members of his caste. I feel like this is like that.

I transitioned at work, and I've tried really hard not to be this character. I asked people to use my new name and pronouns but never complained to HR if they didn't. I made an effort to be as friendly and hardworking as possible, so that my conservative coworkers wouldn't see me through the lens of the "culture wars" like this that they're fed. This kind of comic was the stereotype I faced.

It worked for me. I changed peoples' minds, got respect for being reliable no matter my looks, and eventually started passing so nobody remembers I'm trans anymore.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#145

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

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.

We have a pretty weird political case here in NL around a guy called Thierry Baudet who is clearly unhinged but still gets voted into parliament. Apparently there is a segment of the population that responds sympathetically to things that make no sense at all. They're not even trying to make sense or connect to reality, they just keep repeating all kinds of nonsense and whatever results in a response gets promoted further. COVID, Immigration, 5G, The Russian war on Ukraine, Abortion, Transgenders, Nitrogen in farming etc. Absolutely nothing is sacred, the common thread seems to be that if there are two sides to some subject they will sympathize with the 'losing' side and garner a loyal following. Misery really does love company.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#146

Post by AinderS » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #85

AinderS wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nooo, it's the statements, which were invented as a non-solution that requires nobody to sacrifice anything, changes nothing, but can be a great taking point. They require candidates to show a track record promoting diversity. Merely saying it is not enough, so they do in fact require sacrifices - even if you don't count being forced to profess beliefs you don't hold as a sacrifice. But then forced conversion is al…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Oh right, because a token gesture that you throw on your CV and took 0.05% of the time you'd otherwise spend on writing grant proposals

Sure enough, a report on Berkeley's diversity initiative—recently publicized by Jerry Coyne and John Cochrane—shows that eight different departments affiliated with the life sciences used a diversity rubric to weed out applicants for positions. This was the first step: In one example, of a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214 based solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were. - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...

I'll let you decide if using this criterion as the first step, that disqualifies 76% of candidates, is a "token gesture that takes 0.05% of your time".

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#147

Post by MonkeyMalarky » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

candiddevmike wrote: post #16

oceanghost wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. I was once advised by HR to "try not to offend anyone." I asked the HR woman, "How do I know what offends any particular person?" She looked genuinely stumped.

This is yet another hurdle for folks with any kind of social handicap or phobia. If you were already awkward or shy around people, now you have to be even more conscious about what you do, say, and your body language.

I've absolutely had my introversion be interpreted as low key racism before. It was not a fun experience.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#148

Post by the_doctah » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

muglug wrote: post #92

logicalmonster wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a good explanation to me. Think of Hollywood: dominated by wealthy and out of touch artists. With very few exceptions, they all publicly express politically correct and safe ideas that ensures they keep making money comfortably. That's the total opposite of the direction Scott Adams has been going.

Eh I think you’re wrong about Hollywood: the big-name actors generally don’t spend their time talking politics. Most big actors understand that the more they talk politics, the less bankable they are, and the dollar wins out most of the time.

Are we talking about the same Hollywood? This is sheer denial.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#149

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:56 PM UTC

kayodelycaon wrote: post #9

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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#150

Post by swivelmaster » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:57 PM UTC

Eupraxias wrote: post #120

gingerrr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I disagree. I have a good friend who is conservative about application of government (a 'fiscal conservative'), and very socially progressive. She is a registered Republican, and considers herself a "conservative". While she is actively dedicated to social progress, (supports gay marriage, believes in the right to abortion, etc.), she feels we will be most successful at achieving this goal with leadership who priorit…

That is, quite frankly, an insane position.