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

401–410 of 416 posts

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#401

Post by RajT88 »

voakbasda wrote: post #332
giraffe_lady wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what did you say though??

I can't even remember. Certainly, nothing intended to cause offense. And that's where things go off the rails. Intent matters. This is how comedians can get away with saying things that a normal person cannot, because a "performance" puts things in a different context. And this gets to my point: it is easy to take offense at most anything people say, if you twist it out of context and put your own spin on it. As ment…

> The person that initially frames the issue will be given more credence in most cases, because we as a culture have pretty much taken a shit upon the whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty".

That's a legal precept, not a cultural one.

We've culturally never adhered to it as a nation, nor really pretended to.

We've really not done that great a job of it even in the legal realm, at the level of policing. The courts are a better story.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#402

Post by tptacek »

tptacek wrote: post #387
rayiner wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people say nutty things on Twitter these days—should read Larry Tribe’s recently. Who knows what’s truth and fiction on that site. But I don’t see the basis for reading the comic the way you do based on that tweet. They have nothing in common. Your reading of the comic makes no sense. What is the punchline of the comic in your reading, that Black people can’t become white by self identification in the same wa…

I get what you're trying to say here, but you cannot reasonably make this point, since Adams is on Twitter talking about how his intent is to keep making his comic more and more transgressive until he's canceled.

Just a note that the comment I replied to was edited (I think the second paragraph was added?) after my comment was written. That's fine, I fiddle with my own comments all the time, but if the thread reads funny now, that's why. I'm happy to be done talking about Scott Adams for now.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#403

Post by swivelmaster »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #175
swivelmaster wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is, quite frankly, an insane position.

How do you come to that conclusion? The field of politics has to find answers for many different question: e.g. fiscal conservatism vs. more debt-based spending, gay-marriage vs. no gay-marriage. Why do you consider it insane to agree with one party on one topic and with another party on another topic? Requiring full commitment to one true party line seems to be the insane position to me.

Two reasons.

First, supporting the Republican party for fiscal reasons necessarily means that you're supporting their social positions as well. To paraphrase the old line, what do you call someone who only voted for the Nazis because they supported their economic policies? A Nazi.

In other words, the social policies of a party, especially insofar as they affect the repression of minority groups, a permanent and undeniable stain upon any degree of economic progress that they may also create through their policies.

To put it yet another, more personal way: If you were in a group that the Republicans have targeted with hateful rhetoric or legislation in the last 20 years (gay, trans, Muslim, Latino, etc.), would you forgive me for voting for them if I rationalized it by saying "Well, I think their policies are better for the economy. Sorry that you can't get married / are facing discrimination in your daily life. Thoughts and prayers!"

Second, the data does not support the theory that Republicans are better for the economy. Under Republicans, GDP on average does far worse, recessions are more likely, employment goes down, debt and deficit go up... by just about any metric, they are simply not very good at governing the economy.

So if someone says they vote for Republicans for economic reasons, it's because they like the Republican lines on 'lower taxes' and 'personal responsibility' at a dogmatic level, not because they've done any kind of thoughtful analysis.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#404

Post by knighthack »

dragonwriter wrote: post #283
tenpies wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

A woman can allege she was sexually assaulted years or decade after the event, and still be presumed to be stating the 'truth'.

Yet Adams' claim - of discrimination for being white and male - is somehow presumed to be 'different' from the 'truth', just because he "claimed that long after the fact"?

The truth does not change depending on the age of a claim.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#405

Post by random314 »

leereeves wrote: post #329
clutchdude wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess - I would also guess that one not getting promoted might also be related to the lack skills at leadership, etc. Given his thoughts on leadership: Well, my theory is that all leadership is a form of evil, because the whole point of managing people is getting them to do stuff they don’t want to do on their own. You don’t need a manager to tell people to eat chocolate chip cookies, because they want to do that.…

If that were the reason, then why would his boss tell him it was about race?

Discriminating on the basis of color and gender is illegal and managers are explicitly trained to not make such statements.

I have a hard time believing such a conversation happened.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#406

Post by random314 »

leereeves wrote: post #355
lamontcg wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're actually allowed to have skepticism about someone else's personal claims, offered decades after the fact, without any corroborating external facts.

What's the basis of your skepticism here? Is it rooted in fact, or in bias?

Its rooted in the fact that this behavior is illegal and managers are explicitly trained to not make any such communication.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#407

Post by hnfong »

random314 wrote: post #406
leereeves wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the basis of your skepticism here? Is it rooted in fact, or in bias?

Its rooted in the fact that this behavior is illegal and managers are explicitly trained to not make any such communication.

By your reasoning everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#408

Post by romwell »

namdnay wrote: post #252
romwell wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Belief" that there's something wrong with the fact that you might spend your entire career in academia and never see a Black mathematics professor who was born and educated in the US. It's a very radical concept for many people, including Scott Adams.

that's just basic human decency, no? are we now to respect someone who believes it's completely normal not to see any black professors in a country that's 15% balck?

Yes, it's decent human decency.

And yet, most commentors here would want you to respect such a person.

Welcome to HN.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#409

Post by giaour »

hnfong wrote: post #407
random314 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its rooted in the fact that this behavior is illegal and managers are explicitly trained to not make any such communication.

By your reasoning everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying.

We do in fact require more than a report before meting out punishments. Whether that means "everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying" or "everyone accused of a crime should be presumed to be innocent" is a matter of how you want to spin it.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#410

Post by giaour »

clutchdude wrote: post #322
tenpies wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It doesn't seem well known - I can't find any many claims prior to the Summer of 2020. I found one quote in passing from 2005 - note this in regards his working time frame from 1979 to 1995. You got an MBA at night a few years later. This should have put you right on track for a boss-type position at the bank. What happened? Well, one day, my boss called me in, and said they couldn’t promote a white male because ther…

Memory is not infallible, and I find it more plausible that Adams is remembering his (maybe fair, maybe unfair) inference as an explicit statement.
Post reply on HN