Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scott Adams has died

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Scott Adams has died

#321

Post by coffeemug »

embedding-shape wrote: post #259
jchallis wrote: post #188

Scott Adams died today. I want to acknowledge something complicated. He always felt culturally like family to me. His peaks—the biting humor about corporate absurdity, the writing on systems thinking and compounding habits, the clarity about the gap between what organizations say and what they do—unquestionably made me healthier, happier, and wealthier. If you worked in tech in the 90s and 2000s, Dilbert was a shared…

> You don’t choose family Maybe it's because of my upbringing, and moving away from home when I was about 15, but why not? I think most people could actually "choose family" (or not, if it's better for you as individual). Why stick with people if they're mostly negative and have a negative impact on you? Just because you happen to share 0.0001% more DNA than any other human on the planet? Not to take away from the re…

My experience has been that "chosen family" is a thing that works when you're young, but almost always falls apart when you get older. This has happened to countless people I know. Life throws all kinds of curveballs, incentives change, conflicts arise, sometimes very intense conflicts. Empirically, chosen family is a structure that works in a particular place and time, then disintegrates when conditions change. Real family isn't like that; there is a very strong anthropological connection wired into us that doesn't go away when the situation changes.

Of course it's different for everyone, some families are so tragic they may not be worth preserving, etc. But that's an outlier-- the modal experience is that the power of family is precisely in the fact that you don't get to choose it.

Re: Scott Adams has died

#322

Post by wussboy »

spankalee wrote: post #290

I don't get "avoiding the ugliness" when someone dies. We need to acknowledge the ugliness and try to do better. Acting like "oh, he was trolling", or "it was just a small amount of hating Black people and women" is exactly how you get Steven Miller in the fucking White House. We need to make it shameful to be bigoted again, and that means calling out the bigotry even in death.

Is "calling out the bigotry" useful? I feel like the Internet has been used for this purpose pretty consistently for the last 15 years. Is it effective? Is there less bigotry now than before?

I would argue it has not in fact been useful, that making it shameful hasn't reduced it, and that calling it out in death is not useful in reducing it. I think we do it because it's easier than doing something useful and it makes us feel good.

I hate bigotry as well. I encourage to do something IRL about it.

Re: Scott Adams has died

#324

Post by Jtsummers »

nunobrito wrote: post #172

Why is this post being shadowbanned? This topic has over 200 points, +180 replies and was published one hour ago. Admins: don't play around and be fair. Scott deserves respect and proper condolences.

> Why is this post being shadowbanned?

If it were shadowbanned we wouldn't be able to comment on it. People have flagged it, it triggered the flamewar detector, or both. That's why it got downranked.

If you think the topic of his death has been "shadowbanned" (for some non-standard definition of shadowbanned), check the front page. There's another discussion there about it.

Re: Scott Adams has died

#325

Post by mixmastamyk »

mrweasel wrote: post #182

I loved Dilbert, having worked for more than one Dilbert-like company the humor frequently resonated with me. How or why Scott Adams went completely of the rails is perhaps something we'll sadly never understand. Was this opinions he'd always had, but suppressed, did he somehow become radicalized or was it perhaps medically induced, e.g. a stroke or something. It was incredibly sad to see him throw away his life's wo…

Most of us have experienced a family member who got caught up in a corporate (or worse) news addiction.

It’s so common that we barely remark on it any longer. So I don’t think it’s really a mystery, it can happen to anyone who’s not getting outside enough.

My first clue something was wrong was when he didn’t understand the criticism around the Iraq war of the early 2000s. Which even most conservatives have come around now to acknowledge as a disaster.

Re: Scott Adams has died

#326

Post by rco8786 »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #262
rsynnott wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read one of his books once, written in the 90s or so. It included the idea that affirmations could literally change reality ("law of attraction"), and an _alternative theory of gravity_. At the time, I thought that these were probably attempts at jokes that didn't land very well, but... Once you believe one thing which is totally outside the pale, it is often very easy to start believing others.

After reading that book I found it a lot less easy to be amused by Dilbert. That experience contributed to my actively trying not to learn things about artists I enjoy. It's that "don't meet your heroes" cliche, I guess.

I had this exact experience. Growing up I had nothing but good memories of reading Dilbert over my breakfast cereal, and then laughing as I got into the workforce and realized how accurate the satire was. And then seeing what "he" was actually like just completely threw me for a loop.

Re: Scott Adams has died

#327

Post by kstrauser »

qarl wrote: post #305
IAmBroom wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also: JK Rowling. Pre-2018: Inclusion! Weirdos are people too! The marginalized need a voice! Post-2019: Transsexuals are a blight on society! They cause cancer in puppies!

It's a long list. Sadly, Dawkins is also on there. And I'd argue Elon fits the bill, too.

To argue that, you’d have to find someone who disagrees.

Re: Scott Adams has died

#328

Post by iAMkenough »

coffeemug wrote: post #321
embedding-shape wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don’t choose family Maybe it's because of my upbringing, and moving away from home when I was about 15, but why not? I think most people could actually "choose family" (or not, if it's better for you as individual). Why stick with people if they're mostly negative and have a negative impact on you? Just because you happen to share 0.0001% more DNA than any other human on the planet? Not to take away from the re…

My experience has been that "chosen family" is a thing that works when you're young, but almost always falls apart when you get older. This has happened to countless people I know. Life throws all kinds of curveballs, incentives change, conflicts arise, sometimes very intense conflicts. Empirically, chosen family is a structure that works in a particular place and time, then disintegrates when conditions change. Real…

> there is a very strong anthropological connection wired into us that doesn't go away when the situation changes.

I have not found this to be true.

Re: Scott Adams has died

#329

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

andrewmutz wrote: post #85
Cuuugi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The online world breeds extremism. It wasn't too long ago criticizing someone on their obituary was considered classless. This is the world we have made.

Completely agree. If you're motivated enough about a topic to post about it online, you're probably emotional about it and unable to see it in a clear-headed manner. The people I know who have the most reasonable political opinions never post about it online. The people who have developed unhealthy and biased obsessions are the ones who post constantly.

> If you're motivated enough about a topic to post about it online, you're probably emotional about it and unable to see it in a clear-headed manner.

> The people I know who have the most reasonable political opinions never post about it online.

And here you are posting your opinions online! How fascinating. I hope you recognize the extreme irony in the fact that you were motivated enough about this topic to post about it.

Re: Scott Adams has died

#330

Post by lotsofpulp »

wussboy wrote: post #322
spankalee wrote: post #290

I don't get "avoiding the ugliness" when someone dies. We need to acknowledge the ugliness and try to do better. Acting like "oh, he was trolling", or "it was just a small amount of hating Black people and women" is exactly how you get Steven Miller in the fucking White House. We need to make it shameful to be bigoted again, and that means calling out the bigotry even in death.

Is "calling out the bigotry" useful? I feel like the Internet has been used for this purpose pretty consistently for the last 15 years. Is it effective? Is there less bigotry now than before? I would argue it has not in fact been useful, that making it shameful hasn't reduced it, and that calling it out in death is not useful in reducing it. I think we do it because it's easier than doing something useful and it make…

Making the bigotry known is helpful, because while it might not cause a reduction, it is valuable information for all members of society.
Post reply on HN