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

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#91

Post by romwell » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:37 PM UTC

namdnay wrote: post #65

AinderS wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nooo, it's the statements, which were invented as a non-solution that requires nobody to sacrifice anything, changes nothing, but can be a great taking point. They require candidates to show a track record promoting diversity. Merely saying it is not enough, so they do in fact require sacrifices - even if you don't count being forced to profess beliefs you don't hold as a sacrifice. But then forced conversion is al…

> being forced to profess beliefs you don't hold I don't understand what beliefs you're referring to? I thought they were asking people to promote diversity, what "belief" is there in that?

"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.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#92

Post by muglug » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:37 PM UTC

logicalmonster wrote: post #15

bediger4000 wrote: post #3

The easy answer to the title question is that Scott Adams gained enough wealth that he lost touch. That seems to be a common experience of commercially successful artists. The author never explores this explanation.

That's not a good explanation to me. Think of Hollywood: dominated by wealthy and out of touch artists. With very few exceptions, they all publicly express politically correct and safe ideas that ensures they keep making money comfortably. That's the total opposite of the direction Scott Adams has been going.

Eh I think you’re wrong about Hollywood: the big-name actors generally don’t spend their time talking politics.

Most big actors understand that the more they talk politics, the less bankable they are, and the dollar wins out most of the time.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#93

Post by Joker_vD » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:37 PM UTC

MrMan wrote: post #79

nmilo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who the hell said that was the real problem in academia, as if it was the only problem there? Are we not allowed to talk about a problem if some greater problem also exists?

complaining about something that makes little or no difference compared to real problems makes one look petty and weak-minded even after we steel-man your less-wrong opinions

Interestingly, this very comment is self-applicable because the "whiny comments on HN" make little or no difference compared to real problems.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#94

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:37 PM UTC

Tr3nton wrote: post #76

jacquesm wrote: post #38

He's gone off the deep end. I've seen the same happen with some friends and wrote about it, it's a sad thing when formerly intelligent human beings start losing it and fail to recover only to sink further and further into their own version of reality.

Quoted post unavailable.

You are reading an awful lot into my comment. I don't think you have a clue about what I accept, think or believe.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#95

Post by falcolas » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

engineer_22 wrote: post #31

falcolas wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I figured out how to offend a manager at work: express concerns about Elon Musk. I was reprimanded for being "inconsiderate". EDIT: No, I do not work somewhere that has Elon Musk in a direct or indirect supervisory position, including the board. The manager (whom I don't even report to in the chain) just didn't care for the lack of unconditional praise for Elon Musk in a slack thread.

do you work at Tesla?

Nope. Just another average tech company.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#96

Post by nmilo » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

MrMan wrote: post #79

nmilo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who the hell said that was the real problem in academia, as if it was the only problem there? Are we not allowed to talk about a problem if some greater problem also exists?

complaining about something that makes little or no difference compared to real problems makes one look petty and weak-minded even after we steel-man your less-wrong opinions

Why? Obviously GP does not particularly care about the success of academia, it was only brought up as an indicator of a larger trend. Why derail the conversation and bring up all this other stuff about academia that's not related to the original point?

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#97

Post by rayiner » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

> 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’s rigid notions of race (it’s defined by how other people perceive you) in contrast with their fluid notions of gender (it’s defined by how you perceive yourself).

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#98

Post by kelseyfrog » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #48

CoastalCoder wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely a perception that people forcing diversity training, pronoun protocols, etc. are in positions of power over regular employees. Perhaps attacking people in previously marginalized groups is punching down, but attacking HR DEI enforcers is definitely punching up.

This is my take. Personally - I think Scott Adams is more than a little bit batshit insane, but I certainly don't think he's punching down in the strips presented here.

In the strips shown in the article it's easy to see who he's punching at. If it was up at corporate HR policy, we would see Catbert. Instead we see Dilbert's peers.

Dilbert works by personifying roles. It doesn't do much in the way of role subtext.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#99

Post by ChildOfChaos » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:39 PM UTC

I don't see any issues with the Dilbert strips highlighted.

I've learned just to enjoy things that I find entertainment from and not follow there creators on twitter because that is usually just a recipe for disappointment.

I'd rather avoid drama and division, i'd rather just brush my teeth than worry about what the CEO of my toothpaste brand thinks about politics, yes i'm all for fighting for justice and rights, but i'd rather stick to the issues in front of me.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#100

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 02, 2022, 2:39 PM UTC

cnasc wrote: post #80

gingerrr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

....being worried about societal change is definitionally conservatism, did you mean something else by that?

The United States used to have a strong union culture in various industries, which has been worn down tremendously over the past century. Throughout that time many people in various places on the left end of the political spectrum have expressed their concern about that change. Is that conservatism?

[deleted]