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

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#301

Post by giraffe_lady » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

voakbasda wrote: post #101

giraffe_lady wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is going to work you need to tell us what prompted this conversation so we can see how plausible it is to pretend you didn't know it was offensive.

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.

So what did you say though??

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#302

Post by cjbgkagh » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:47 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #295

cjbgkagh wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't Rand Paul count as a fiscal conservatives who hasn't been kicked out? And how is Liz Cheney a fiscal conservative? Granted that I don't know enough about US politics to be sure - but isn't Dick Cheney super corrupt. I'm not sure if fiscal conservativism counts if the government is saving money on social programs so they could send it to Halliburton instead. It's impossible to ask one side to balance the budg…

> Wouldn't Rand Paul count as a fiscal conservatives who hasn't been kicked out? Rand Paul is more of an isolationist libertarian. America First was really his slogans, before Trump made it cool. Alas, its becoming more obvious that he's a stooge for the Russians these days. > It's impossible to ask one side to balance the budget without punishing the other side for not balancing the budget. Name one time under Repub…

I just thought your list of fiscal conservatives to be quite odd. And isolationist would be more fiscally conservative when compared to the expense of running a world empire.

I'm not here defending Republicans, I consider both parties to be controlled by big businesses.

My point is the electorate isn't going to vote for proper fiscal conservatives so it's a bit ridiculous to expect politicians to be fiscal conservatives. Maybe if the US dollar loses the reserve status and the connection between policy and consequence tightens then maybe after an economic disaster the public may want fiscal conservatism.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#303

Post by Rand4ObvReasons » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #257

Rand4ObvReasons wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at FANG. My manager had director level approval to hold out job openings to women only. They same manager complained that they were sick of “men and Asian women” making up the team. They asked me for resumes but said they only wanted non-male, non-white or LGBTQ resumes. They were recognized as a diversity champion in the company.

If this is in the U.S., surely this is a violation of federal law. And if you complied you are an accomplice. I would document everything and report it to the feds promptly, to cover your ass.

I feared retaliation, but I documented at least part of it. When I went to report it seems the statute of limitations expired. And yes, this is USA.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#304

Post by cat_plus_plus » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:53 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #208

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“Other people in the world are inconsiderate assholes, therefore I should be an inconsiderate asshole to help my coworkers prepare for the inevitable. And if they can’t handle it, too bad.” By the same token do you cheat at every game with your children to teach them the cold truth about society?

I certainly don't give children participation awards for losing games played by the rules. There are rules for speaking in meetings, and they don't include passive-aggressive silence with no indication that you would like to speak. If you gave an indication through words or gestures, then yes you should be given a chance in a reasonable time.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#305

Post by the_doctah » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:55 PM UTC

dariusj18 wrote: post #156

The token hire strip would be funny if it wasn't an actual reflection of the strip and it's lack of diversity (and the obvious reticence of the creator to consider diversity as important). What would have been a smarter and less controversial move would be to subtly introduce people of color over time, then add a strip about a diversity hire, with the other characters visibly getting ticked off.

There are like 5 main (human) characters. 1 is Indian and 1 is female. Your argument is a strawman.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#306

Post by dghlsakjg » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 4:58 PM UTC

78124781 wrote: post #273

dghlsakjg wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would recommend taking a moment to read the actual articles instead of dismissing the sources offhand. The City Journal article has links to the actual documents in question. The Washington Examiner has screenshots of the actual training. The WSJ has links to the actual politically biased and ideologically narrow hiring criteria being used. You can complain about the bias of these sources (just like other people do…

I did read the articles.

As far as checking sources, one of yours is a political advocacy organization that explicitly acts and lobbies against DEI.

As a former newsroom employee, I am well aware that there is no such thing as an unbiased news department.

I had never heard of City Journal, but the article was so clearly written from a biased perspective that I clicked through to the main page and was hit with the Soros lead story.

Same with the Washington Examiner, never heard of it, but the "top stories" sidebar shows a VERY clear bias.

Personally, I am happy to accept that there are specific instances and anecdotes where DEI and progressive policies have been overzealous or enforced in a way that disadvantages white men and others who explicitly and loudly reject it.

I'm also willing to acknowledge that there is overwhelming, and far more plentiful, data that support the arguments of systemic racism. I believe DEI as a concept is a good thing that occasionally goes wrong, much like literally any system applied on a large scale. Patents are good, patent trolls are bad. The ADA is good, ADA trolls are bad. DEI is good, using it as a political hiring filter is bad.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#307

Post by cat_plus_plus » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 5:01 PM UTC

Timon3 wrote: post #236

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why is it not also an option to change the way the workplace works? As another commenter already posted, assertiveness doesn't equal knowledge or importance. If our society tends to prioritize things like assertiveness in men and tends to see these characteristics as negative in women, AND if we see these things as necessary and good in the workplace, how doesn't this disadvantage women? Why do women have to change f…

Because in a meeting of 20 people, it's not practical to constantly worry about people who want to speak but give zero indication that this is the case. Approximately nobody prefers passive-aggressive women to assertive women. If men get away with being pushy and rude more than women, that's a valid problem to address, but assertiveness has nothing to do with these things. Nobody is put off by a raised hand or a quick "excuse me".

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#308

Post by woodruffw » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 5:01 PM UTC

AinderS wrote: post #286

izietto wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't there no-vax in US?

And antibiotics? And anti-X-ray? There's a million different medical advances, you can always find someone against (or suspicious of) a few of them. That doesn't mean all of conservatism is against all of them, as woodruffw would have you believe.

I don't understand where you believe it's been claimed that conservatism is unilaterally against all technological progress. It isn't. Conservatism is best understood as a social phenomenon that interacts with technological progress varyingly, depending on the effect that whatever particular technology has on social values any particular group of conservatives happen to priotitize.

X-rays do not particularly threaten any social scheme.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#309

Post by woodruffw » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

cnasc wrote: post #292

woodruffw wrote: post #134

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…

My comment addressed gingerrr's assertion that "being worried about societal change" is the defining point of conservatism. I provided a counterexample; of course adherents of any ideology would be concerned about changes that indicate increasing currency of a competing ideology. > what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that things must go back to how they were…

> Your definition lines up more neatly with anarcho-primitivism than conservatism (at least modern American conservatism, with which I'm most familiar).

Anarcho-primitivism is a discrete variant of the overarching conservative phenomenon: when an-prims go say "go back" they mean a specific and particularly reactionary set of social transformations. This doesn't mean that ordinary conservatives don't desire social regression; it just makes them not as openly reactionary as the most reactionary social conservatives.

You're right, of course: any short and pithy summary of an ideology is going to have gaps. American conservatism is "funny" in the sense that it admits of additional gaps: there is a significant (although continually diminishing) population of "purely fiscal" conservatives who have dominated American intellectual conservatism, for example. And this is true for progressive movements as well, particular in the context of labor.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#310

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #299

dragonwriter wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is well-known that Adams claimed that long after the fact, which is somewhat different from it being known to be true.

Are you accusing him of lying? And if you are, do you have any evidence? Evidence would be interesting, but unsupported accusations don't add anything to the conversation. Anyone could respond "he claimed that...which is somewhat different from it being known to be true" after any claim. It's just a way of derailing discussion and reducing the cognitive dissonance of a statement you'd rather not believe.

> Evidence would be interesting, but unsupported accusations don't add anything to the conversation.

Yes, that's exactly how I feel about his long-delayed claims of explicit cut-and-dried (with decades of on-point precedent at the time he claims it occurred) illegal employment practice by his previous employer.