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

371–380 of 416 posts

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#371

Post by jacquesm »

csours wrote: post #366
jacquesm wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a version of 'look at what you made me do'? It isn't the progressives that are highlighting and reinforcing differences, they are working (hard) to try to reduce those differences, at least in those ways that matter to a great many people. Progressives by definition yearn for progress and those opposed to it will use anything to stop that progress, any excuse is as good as the next. So no matter what progr…

"Why can't you be reasonable" is utterly poisoned as a phrase, similar to "look what you made me do". It is still important to be reasonable, and it is still important to look at how people take your messaging, even in bad faith. > they are working (hard) to try to reduce those differences, at least in those ways that matter to a great many people. Yes. > It isn't the progressives that are highlighting and reinforcin…

I think a big part of that is simply thinking that it all requires a response. It doesn't. I forget people's names with abandon, ditto their preferred pronouns and I'm sure they'll correct me if I get it wrong. I have a friend who changed their name and even after a decade I will still occasionally call him by his old name, not because I don't respect him (I do, very much so) but simply because I wasn't wired to see names as dynamic but static and I always have to think of him as 'x who changed his name to y' rather than 'just y'.

The whole thing to me feels as though there are a lot of people making a fuss about absolutely nothing just so they have something to make a fuss about. To drive the divide you need that fuss, not the request to change pronouns or to try to strive for racial equality. Those make sense, and if someone really disagrees with them then they won't be able to stop society changing around them.

Which is a lot of what this is all about: people rejecting change simply because that wasn't the world they were born into and they think that it is in their power to reject change in the environment. They're living dinosaurs who will eventually be overcome by history, even if they have their occasional spasms.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#372

Post by amalter »

tenpies wrote: post #281
clutchdude wrote: post #34

I find it humorous that the usual tone deaf HR stuff suddenly becomes a lightning rod of "wokeness" for certain folks because it personally offends them. But with Scott Adams, you can see that this sort of stuff always irked him - look back at Dilbert poking fun at sensitivity training in the 90's - he did have the progressive take of making Asok and Alice as the equally, if not more, competent than their peers(ed: t…

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? [1] --- [1] https://twitter.com/scottadamssays/status/127766727657395404...

I will drop this apropos of nothing about the time that Scott Adam's created numerous sock puppets to influence discussion about himself on a "popular with the technorati" community blog - https://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Scott_Adams,_plannedchaos

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#373

Post by csours »

jacquesm wrote: post #371
csours wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why can't you be reasonable" is utterly poisoned as a phrase, similar to "look what you made me do". It is still important to be reasonable, and it is still important to look at how people take your messaging, even in bad faith. > they are working (hard) to try to reduce those differences, at least in those ways that matter to a great many people. Yes. > It isn't the progressives that are highlighting and reinforcin…

I think a big part of that is simply thinking that it all requires a response. It doesn't. I forget people's names with abandon, ditto their preferred pronouns and I'm sure they'll correct me if I get it wrong. I have a friend who changed their name and even after a decade I will still occasionally call him by his old name, not because I don't respect him (I do, very much so) but simply because I wasn't wired to see…

> I think a big part of that is simply thinking that it all requires a response.

If anti-Progressive messaging wasn't so effective, I would agree.

> The whole thing to me feels as though there are a lot of people making a fuss about absolutely nothing just so they have something to make a fuss about.

Yes. Just look at the times that Tucker Carlson has made up something to be outraged out - Why is the Green M&M less sexy now? is a real thing this ... person has talked about.

Fox's campaign against wokeness is entirely manufactured out of thin air. CRT as a boogeyman is laughable. But the anti-Progressive messaging works. It works really well. And I think Progressives need to get beyond their immediate reaction and feeling of being attacked.

---

Back to Scott Adams - he praised Donald Trump's ability to craft and control messaging. I really really hated this point of view when I first heard it. Trump is just so easy to make fun of. He's a clown. But he's also a genius. Unfortunately he's a genius at only one thing - self-promotion. If you had to identify the quality he most values in subordinates, it is that the subordinate must say good things about Trump. They may never say anything negative. That is very destructive in the the real world, because everyone makes mistakes and they need to learn and grow. Trump has not provided much evidence of learning and growth.

I should be clear - I don't support Scott Adams or his messaging, but he's not always wrong.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#375

Post by jacquesm »

csours wrote: post #373
jacquesm wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a big part of that is simply thinking that it all requires a response. It doesn't. I forget people's names with abandon, ditto their preferred pronouns and I'm sure they'll correct me if I get it wrong. I have a friend who changed their name and even after a decade I will still occasionally call him by his old name, not because I don't respect him (I do, very much so) but simply because I wasn't wired to see…

> I think a big part of that is simply thinking that it all requires a response. If anti-Progressive messaging wasn't so effective, I would agree. > The whole thing to me feels as though there are a lot of people making a fuss about absolutely nothing just so they have something to make a fuss about. Yes. Just look at the times that Tucker Carlson has made up something to be outraged out - Why is the Green M&M less s…

There is a dutch politician that took that idea and ran with it, he's promoting the most outrageous stuff, entirely made up and people lap it up.

Judging by what is happening there: Trump made up plenty of stuff as well and people lapped it up, they don't necessarily need a particular enemy to point at the audience is so gullible that if one isn't readily available it won't make a huge difference. But if one is then that's just a lubricant, something to focus all the hate on.

Finally: Scott Adams is also operating from that playbook, he's not just praising Donald Trump, he's borrowing the principle and even some of the subjects, either because he's lost the plot or because he's so cynical he doesn't care about the consequences. Either way it doesn't look good.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#376

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #369
tptacek wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's obviously not making a joke about the experience of biracial children.

I didn’t say that. My point is that race is to a much greater degree a fluid and socially defined construct than gender. And Adams is “obviously” making a joke at the expense of white people on positions of power who view them in the exact opposite way.

The joke is unambiguously not a comment on the fluidity of racial identity.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#377

Post by a4a4a4a4 »

gingerrr wrote: post #340
a4a4a4a4 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're worried about society changing, there is no definition of the word "progressive" you fulfill unless it's your tax bracket. If you saw the "progressive" movement take a turn toward something you consider immoral, like say, eugenics, would you consider yourself non-progressive for opposing it? Or does "progressive" include some kind of moral judgement, which leads to a "no true Scotsman" situation, where "o…

Determining something as progressive requires a more historical perspective - for an alarmingly high percentage of our history as social creatures, eugenics were accepted as science (or divine judgment). It's only in the last century that we have started to unpick those ideas as repugnant, and it's not a universal opinion. If a progressive movement started advocating eugenics, they would be advocating a return to pre…

> eugenics were accepted as science

This is exactly my point.

By your definition, the “progressive” view is the one that doesn’t try to keep society the same. At some point, eugenics came around, and the world now thought this was a good way to progress. Opposing this adoption at the time, according to your definitions, would make someone a conservative.

My point is that opposing certain directions that society may be moving toward doesn’t need to be viewed as “conservative” or “anti progress.” There are certain things, like eugenics, that we can preemptively say, or should have potentially said are not a good idea. We don’t need change for its own sake.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#378

Post by dahart »

fluoridation wrote: post #352
cholantesh wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're being skeptical of a report that is built on a single account of anonymous hearsay.

It's an article in a newspaper (not The Daily Mail, the Argentinian one) that gives the full name of the person the article is about. It's neither anonymous nor hearsay.

I responded to the Daily Mail link. The two articles are not the same at all. The Daily Mail’s report is both reported by an anonymous “relative”, and as such is in fact hearsay.

Furthermore, both articles acknowledge that 1) Sergia has not requested retirement benefits, 2) This causes fear because nobody else has done it yet 3) Sergia completely denies the unsubstantiated accusation that she changed her gender for retirement reasons. There is zero evidence presented in either article that Sergia’s claims are untrue. Why are you choosing to believe an accusation despite the lack of evidence? And why do you think it’s okay to dox someone publicly before anything has even happened, regardless of their motivation?

The title and the content of the Daily Mail article is pure speculation, not bona fide news in any way, shape or form. You are free to defend sleazy tabloid reporting as news, but that’s on you, not me.

And why does this matter, even if it is true? This one single report doesn’t represent a pattern, and doesn’t prove anything about anyone else. If the best we can do is report on one exaggerated case from South America, that tends to support the idea above that this is largely fear and a talking point, and not a statistical reality.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#379

Post by dahart »

fluoridation wrote: post #296
medwards666 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing, but nothing, about the Daily Mail constitutes _real_ news.

The Daily Mail is merely repeating a local article: https://www.eltribuno.com/salta/nota/2018-3-22-0-0-0-sergia-...

No it is not “merely repeating”. That article is extremely different from the Daily Mail’s version.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#380

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #376
rayiner wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say that. My point is that race is to a much greater degree a fluid and socially defined construct than gender. And Adams is “obviously” making a joke at the expense of white people on positions of power who view them in the exact opposite way.

The joke is unambiguously not a comment on the fluidity of racial identity.

The joke is mocking the beliefs of the managerial class. That’s Adams’ whole shtick. In this case his mocking the contradiction in how ideologies ascendant among the managerial class view the fluidity of race versus gender.
Post reply on HN