171–180 of 416 posts
I do not consider him to be a nice person, but I have enjoyed Dilbert, quite a bit.
These days, I don't really follow Dilbert, anymore. Adams just got so bad, that I couldn't follow Dilbert, without thinking about his creator.
We should be asking what the hell is up with society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is that conservatism? No, because it doesn't rest on the fundamental assumption that the past was right , nor the corresponding political will to return to "the way things were." History is a record of advances and regressions. Referencing history does not fundamentally result in a conservative political outlook; what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that th…
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
....being worried about societal change is definitionally conservatism, did you mean something else by that?
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.
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 want to call out your sources. City Journal is a propaganda outlet (George Soros conspiracy takes should not lead your top stories if you want credibility), The Washington Examiner is also openly biased and prints bullshit, and the story you mentioned has two unproven, unattributed, anecdotes. Newsweek... is Newsweek. The WSJ opinion section is a bad place to look for unbiased facts, as would be the NYT opinion sec…
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've run into some real-world examples of this workplace weirdness, including a clumsily architected hiring plan that required certain roles to be filled by people meeting certain demographics (quickly shut down by legal once they caught on). But at the same time, I don't find Dilbert's take on these issues to be funny, nor do I really think that it's an appropriate place to combat these nuanced issues. 3-panel comic…
And yet single-panel political cartoons have been doing it well for centuries. Of course they can't encompass all the nuance, 1000-word essays can't either. Cartoons (and essays) provoke discourse and critical thinking.
Or they used to, anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
He didn't start blogging about how great Trump was, he blogged that Trump had a high chance of winning the election and explained why. Can't you make the difference between explaining a phenomena and encouraging it?