Dilbert remains some of the most cutting, divisive and fearless American satire. I'm sure some people are deeply hurt buy it, but I would hate to shy away from conversations about this topics.
What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
311–320 of 416 posts
Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
#312> Dave is hired merely as an act of workplace tokenism before wrapping up with what appears to be an attempt at a thinly-veiled transphobic joke. That particular strip is actually a hilarious joke that is probably lost on people who have never been in the position of being the minority who isn’t meeting expectations for “adding diversity.” It’s not directed to trans people at all, but rather pokes fun at some people’…
Quoted post unavailable.
The helicopter joke cruelly and flippantly dismisses the feelings and distress felt by trans people. That’s not what’s going on in the Dilbert strip. The punchline isn’t “it’s ridiculous for a minority to identify as white.” The butt of the joke is instead the white boss, who wants the minority employee to fit into a socially constructed identity for “diverse” people.
And mocking the Judith Butler theories embraced by mostly white progressives isn’t the same as attacking the disadvantaged groups that white progressives like to use as shields.
Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's an important difference: he knows what happened to him. You have no idea. So unless you have some conflicting evidence, the reasonable thing to do is listen to him about his own experience.
Or to put it another way: his own testimony is a form of evidence.
Whereas this entire diversion, starting from your comment, has added no new information. I think we should stop now.
Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
There's an important difference: he knows what happened to him. You have no idea. So unless you have some conflicting evidence, the reasonable thing to do is listen to him about his own experience. Or to put it another way: his own testimony is a form of evidence. Whereas this entire diversion, starting from your comment, has added no new information. I think we should stop now.
> You have no idea
Exactly my point in regard to the upthread question:
“Is it now well known that Dilbert exists solely because Scott Adams was told - as a young executive - that he would not be promoted further because he is a white male?”
I have no idea if that occurred or if it is why Dilbert exists, though I certainly know that is part of the story that Adams tells about it.
Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
#315Earlier 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.
Seeing as how Adams has no evidence whatsoever that a large corporation whose HR department would be well-versed in what they can and cannot say (as well as what they should and should not say) to employees I think the burden of proof rests on Adams.
Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Seeing as how Adams has no evidence whatsoever that a large corporation whose HR department would be well-versed in what they can and cannot say (as well as what they should and should not say) to employees I think the burden of proof rests on Adams.
Presumably an HR department or executive would also be smart enough not to put such a statement in writing.
Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
There's an important difference: he knows what happened to him. You have no idea. So unless you have some conflicting evidence, the reasonable thing to do is listen to him about his own experience. Or to put it another way: his own testimony is a form of evidence. Whereas this entire diversion, starting from your comment, has added no new information. I think we should stop now.
You're actually allowed to have skepticism about someone else's personal claims, offered decades after the fact, without any corroborating external facts.
Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 conservati…
> My point is the electorate isn't going to vote for proper fiscal conservatives
My point is that fiscal conservatives don't exist. You have one side just cutting taxes, and the other side ballooning the budget. But at least the other side raises taxes and kinda sorta gets closer to balance.
Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
#319What has happened to Scott Adams is what happened to a lot of people in the last 20 years, internet radicalization. I first noticed this with Islamic extremism in the 2000s, now the same thing is happening to liberals and conservatives in 2010s. The way we engage on the internet is toxic and over time leads to radicalization and violence. We have not provided anyone with outlets to compromise or pathways to understan…
And social media automatically putting everyone inside self re-affirming bubbles has made everything worse for everyone.
Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?
#320What's wrong with mocking HR? It's so easy to have a meritocracy rather than measuring the immutable characteristics of your employees...
I can't fathom how HR can justify selective racism without lawsuits galore.