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

211–220 of 416 posts

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#211

Post by bglazer »

oceanghost wrote: post #12
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…

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.

Yes, trying not to offend people is fundamentally important to working together.

"How do I know what offends a particular person?" Basic cultural competency will dictate that there are words or stereotypes that are considered offensive to certain people. Outside of that, yes, you will probably make mistakes and aggrieve people from time to time. Again, making an occasional social blunder is a basic part of human relationships. When that happens, listen to why the person is offended. Often they will have real, good reasons that center on them feeling disrespected, and having that disrespect hurt their career or life. Then, apologize sincerely. Then, don't continue making the same mistake, that would be extremely disrespectful. If you wholesale disagree and think the offended person is being trivial or absurd, just don't bring it up or find a new place to work.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#212

Post by cauthon »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #193
jrockway wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've taken unconscious bias training. I thought it was very good. I remember catching myself in some meeting talking over a quiet woman who had probably been wanting to talk for quite a while. My brain remembered the training, I shut up, and let her participate in the meeting as an equal. Without the training, I would probably be silently making people miserable. Now I don't do that, as much. You use the word "pseudo…

It was considerate of you to do that, on the other hand adults also need to learn to be assertive to succeed in social aspects of work. If you were cutting her off or not paying attention to a raised hand, sure try to change that. But otherwise you are not doing her any favors for her long term career growth, where she will have to participate in meetings with confident, knowledgeable and busy people focused on work…

Listening to the loudest voice in the room is often not the heuristic that finds the most valuable contributions.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#213

Post by [deleted] »

spamizbad wrote: post #116
oneoff786 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consultant who sees a lot of different big company cultures, and even done some work specifically on diversity stuff: They’re overblown. I’ve yet to see anything noteworthy. I’m convinced the stupid stuff is more or less confined to California. I’m sure people will be eager to show their anecdotes otherwise but I’m not really interested in that.

Not a consultant but my experience mirrors yours. Among my friends, several of whom work typical corporate jobs, nobody has experienced anything beyond basic diversity training that would be tame by the standards of the 90s. The only real new thing is just respecting people's pronouns but that strikes me as basic decency and professional conduct.

[deleted]

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#214

Post by gadders »

From the article:

>> This, of course, mirrors an ongoing controversy in certain conservative circles over the use of gender-neutral terms in place of the word ‘woman’ in order to include trans men and non-binary individuals in increasingly pertinent conversations about bodily autonomy.

I think is a terrible strawman.

>> This, of course, mirrors an ongoing controversy in certain gender critical circles over the use of gender-neutral terms in place of the word ‘woman’ in order to maintain women-only spaces.

There you go.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#215

Post by danaris »

parrellel wrote: post #63
SeanLuke wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Might've been funny once but degraded into political polemics for the last decade or more. What are you talking about? Doonesbury has been a proudly, and heavily, political comic since the 1960s.

He's confusing it with Bloom County, prolly.

Bloom County? The comic that was pretty openly political back in 1983?

Sure, there were stretches of time where it didn't address anything particularly politics-related, but to suggest that it was not political seems to quite spectacularly miss the point.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#216

Post by bglazer »

noasaservice wrote: post #58
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.

You know, from all the companies I've worked at, I've never seen a man working in HR.

I have seen a man working in HR.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#217

Post by bonestamp2 »

> So aggravated with being stifled by the “woke” masses is Adams that he recently shared a poll on Twitter to ask followers whether or not he should force himself into retirement by “getting cancelled”.

He's playing himself. You can't get canceled as a political cartoonist -- it's normal for them to make a point through extreme, and often very "offensive", situations. That's their job.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#218

Post by [deleted] »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #82
CabSauce wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Yes, but overcorrecting but trying to implement equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity is bad as well. Both can be true.

[deleted]

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#219

Post by biohacker85 »

_gabe_ wrote: post #103
fabian2k wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plain old racism/xenophobia and sexism was very common and still is to some extent, though it is not as socially acceptable as it used to be. So I find it odd to only consider anti-white bias you encountered while ignoring any discrimination in the other direction. I strongly doubt it does not exist. There is certainly stuff under the diversity banner, especially when done primarily with PR/image concerns that reason…

Quoted post unavailable.

I've talked with enough "woke" activists to know that they are not oblivious to this glaring contradiction. While most don't say it outright, since whites are perceived to be privileged and the main offenders of racism, racism against them is to be accepted during this "transition" period to equality.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#220

Post by noasaservice »

jwond wrote: post #122
romwell wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Quoted post unavailable.

There is no such thing as the "white race". English, Spanish, German, Jewish, Italian, Irish - sure.

"White" is a legal construct that was created in Virginia in 1691, and white was "English and other white peoples", and "not negro and not indian"

The very basis of "white" isn't a definition, as much as it is a negation of 2 other groups. (Now, it is also not middle eastern and not Asian as well.)

Post reply on HN