Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

[tszaboo]

So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that?  Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?

All I can suggest is stand your ground. Do everything you can to remain rational and not give into emotion. Offer to discuss, be friendly, invite disagreement, refuse to be lectured in a one-sided "conversation", have a collection of responses formed that you can give in a rational manner. Most importantly, never, ever apologize for something you said.

It doesn't seem to operate on a rational level anymore. Some people have compared it to religions, some say it's epidemic hysteria. I've seen too many videos where the contradiction of their belief system is pointed out, and you can see when the cognitive dissonance kicks in and they usually start shouting and leave. This is not rational behavior.

As I see it, one of the most important parts of a university education is being exposed to ideas of all sorts and learning the ability to think critically, not to silence people and protect others from words that might make them uncomfortable.

I love speaking to or listen to people who I don't have 100% the same ideas, and they can talk like an adult. Usually they can point out things that I haven't considered. Or maybe I even learn something.
But the way I see it, the whole woke construct seems to work on an emotional level, with some misguided empathy. 

[james_s]

I love speaking to or listen to people who I don't have 100% the same ideas, and they can talk like an adult. Usually they can point out things that I haven't considered. Or maybe I even learn something.
But the way I see it, the whole woke construct seems to work on an emotional level, with some misguided empathy. 

There are some people that I myself blew off as nutters, which in retrospect I realized was entirely because I'd heard other people describe them as evil horrible <insert insult here> people and then at some point stumbled across a video of them speaking and realized they were actually very reasonable and nothing like I'd heard them described. Maybe I disagree with their point of view but they were certainly not monsters. Something similar happened with the drama around that former Google engineer James Damore. I'd heard all about the "sexist screed" he wrote that said this, that and the other thing, thought he sounded like a real jerk, then I sat down and read through the essay he wrote fully expecting to be offended and instead I discovered that it was not anything like it had been described and didn't say much of what people had claimed it said. I can only thing of two possibilities for that, one is that people of a certain mindset read into it what they expect it to say or what fits their own agenda, or people that never bothered to read it at all simply parroting what someone else said about it.

I think you hit the nail on the head about the whole thing operating on an emotional level. There are people in this world that are driven predominantly by emotions and I have a very difficult time interacting with them because I am not very emotional at all and put a far greater emphasis on logic. How something makes me feel is largely irrelevant, I want to see the data.

[Nominal Animal]

Most importantly, never, ever apologize for something you said.

True, absolutely; but dammit, I hate that.

Acknowledging an error or a slight I made, intentionally or not, is a core value for me.  It is how I learn, and kill my ego with counterfire when it hinders my learning.  I am extremely irritated by people who ignore or hide their own errors to maintain their "reputation", especially in technical matters; that kind of "reputation gaming" at sites like StackExchange is what drove me away from there.  Even though it is a flaw that makes me vulnerable to that kind of an attack, I'm not sure I'm willing to change my behaviour in that direction.  I suspect many members here are at least somewhat similar.

I would characterise this as the option to "gamify" the interaction, except that the way one wins, is by having the opponent reconsider their opinion by examining the target statements and concepts fully, instead of relying on second-hand emotive declarations about it.  A honorable game of interaction, but a social game nevertheless.

[EEVblog]

many people dismissing/canceling others based on their opinions very often do so based on *preconceptions* of what the other person's opinions really are, essentially their *own* understanding, with their *own* biases and a clear tendency to project them onto others.

Exactly.

This is how I've been labeled as well.  Not often by someone I'm directly discussing, but by people overhearing a snippet, taking it out of context, and labeling me a monster.  I do not want it to happen to anyone, not even people I dislike.

So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that?

You take the same approach most have in the cancellation/covid era, say nothing and keep your mouth shut for fear of the mob. Fear works.
Sucky way to live your life though being afraid.
Some people have no choice though because they can't afford to lose their job or career or whatever.

[EEVblog]

I love speaking to or listen to people who I don't have 100% the same ideas, and they can talk like an adult. Usually they can point out things that I haven't considered. Or maybe I even learn something.
But the way I see it, the whole woke construct seems to work on an emotional level, with some misguided empathy. 

There are some people that I myself blew off as nutters, which in retrospect I realized was entirely because I'd heard other people describe them as evil horrible <insert insult here> people and then at some point stumbled across a video of them speaking and realized they were actually very reasonable and nothing like I'd heard them described. Maybe I disagree with their point of view but they were certainly not monsters. Something similar happened with the drama around that former Google engineer James Damore. I'd heard all about the "sexist screed" he wrote that said this, that and the other thing, thought he sounded like a real jerk, then I sat down and read through the essay he wrote fully expecting to be offended and instead I discovered that it was not anything like it had been described and didn't say much of what people had claimed it said. I can only thing of two possibilities for that, one is that people of a certain mindset read into it what they expect it to say or what fits their own agenda, or people that never bothered to read it at all simply parroting what someone else said about it.

And that's how you fix this problem in society.

I think you hit the nail on the head about the whole thing operating on an emotional level. There are people in this world that are driven predominantly by emotions and I have a very difficult time interacting with them because I am not very emotional at all and put a far greater emphasis on logic. How something makes me feel is largely irrelevant, I want to see the data.

Fear is the most powerful emotion. And this is why people do not speak up or defend people or even try to inject some nuance into the discussion when people are being piled on. This is why cancellation and hate mobs work.

[SiliconWizard]

many people dismissing/canceling others based on their opinions very often do so based on *preconceptions* of what the other person's opinions really are, essentially their *own* understanding, with their *own* biases and a clear tendency to project them onto others.

Exactly.

This is how I've been labeled as well.  Not often by someone I'm directly discussing, but by people overhearing a snippet, taking it out of context, and labeling me a monster.  I do not want it to happen to anyone, not even people I dislike.

So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that?

You take the same approach most have in the cancellation/covid era, say nothing and keep your mouth shut for fear of the mob. Fear works.
Sucky way to live your life though being afraid.
Some people have no choice though because they can't afford to lose their job or career or whatever.

Yep, but they should realize that keeping one's mouth shut for too long often ends up destroying them one way or another, and losing one's job will pale in comparison.

[EEVblog]

So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that?  Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?

People are much nicer in real life.
Real world example, I met one my "haters" at a venue once. Someone who has gone to the trouble to publicly document stuff I'd done, but he introduced himself and we hung around having fun getting along great for a few hours talking about vintage tech stuff. I came away with a totally different opinion of him, and I'm guessing likewise him of me. We both simply ignored that any beef that ever happened between us.
Pro tip is, try to be nice to people who think are your enemy, they probably aren't as bad as you think.

[wilfred]

The guy was borderline amusing 30 years ago.

It got boring, repetitive, mean and just unfunny quite soon so I stopped following it, then, still many years ago, I happened to read some of the things he had written - what an entitled and self-righteous asshole.

He is free to spout his latest inflammatory bigotry, others are free to not want to listen or be involved with him.
Freedom of speech goes both ways, does not mean you are entitled to have a platform.

IMNSHO, YMMV.

Were I a moderator, I would probably lock this post - not technical, and quite prone to devolve in a shitfest.
I'll report myself.

EtA: Done.

Well this thread seems to have gone pretty much to script.


I hadn't read Dilbert for many years and was surprised to hear this news here. And not elsewhere first.

XKCD is at least clever. Dilbert seems to not even be funny or clever much anymore. Just based on a scan of recent strips I made. So whether it gets cancelled or not seems irrelevant I wouldn't read it anyway or miss it.

I wish Gary Larson never stopped creating the Far Side. There were some timeless classics I still remember decades later.

[vk6zgo]

So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that?  Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?

All I can suggest is stand your ground. Do everything you can to remain rational and not give into emotion. Offer to discuss, be friendly, invite disagreement, refuse to be lectured in a one-sided "conversation", have a collection of responses formed that you can give in a rational manner. Most importantly, never, ever apologize for something you said.

Maybe not apologise, but certainly admit it if you are wrong, in a case where you have made an error in an observable fact.

As I have said many times, some things are worth "going to the barricades" over---many things are not.

[coppice]

People are much nicer in real life.

People are much nicer one on one. If they have an opportunity to grandstand they can be as deranged in real life as on line.

[Nominal Animal]

So, does anyone have any ideas on how to avoid or fix that?  Rational or logical argument does not seem to cut it anymore, even at universities.
Twitter and social media is a lost cause in my opinion, so ignore those; but in face-to-face discussions?

People are much nicer in real life.
Real world example, I met one my "haters" at a venue once. Someone who has gone to the trouble to publicly document stuff I'd done, but he introduced himself and we hung around having fun getting along great for a few hours talking about vintage tech stuff. I came away with a totally different opinion of him, and I'm guessing likewise him of me. We both simply ignored that any beef that ever happened between us.
Pro tip is, try to be nice to people who think are your enemy, they probably aren't as bad as you think.

This is true.  Whenever there is honest interaction, you can always find common ground; even when you disagree about some things.  It isn't difficult to set aside differences when you talk about something else instead, that interests both.

That is also why "isms" require anybody criticizing them or pointing out errors in their logic to be inhumanized and labeled as the enemy, the monster that infects anyone who interacts with them; especially so for the "isms" that claim they are making the world a better place.  Otherwise people would easily realize how thin and hollow such "isms" are, that the real world isn't so simple and uniform that one-sentence solutions can magically fix everything.

People are much nicer one on one. If they have an opportunity to grandstand they can be as deranged in real life as on line.

Humans behave differently when the size of the interacting group exceeds a limit.  The exact limit varies depending on the situation and age and cultural background of the participants, but there is a definite difference in the behaviour.  It is why I don't like "crowds": you no longer interact individual to individual, and have to deal with group dynamics instead.

[Tomorokoshi]

I REPEAT, PLEASE NO MORE DISCUSSION ON RACISM HERE. Your post will be DELETED.

Dave, invocation of the term "woke" by definition implies a discussion of racism. That being the case, what is the topic of this thread, then? Because (the topic that shall not be discussed) is related to what started all this. However, given that this forum is about, or related to, engineering, we can then apply a modicum of an engineering-based approach to this particular subject. A structure of topics regarding "Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website" could be:

1. Scott Adams
  1.1. Dilbert comic strip as an engineered product
    1.1.1. Figure of merit for humor
    1.1.2. Figure of merit for relevance to corporations in general
    1.1.3. Figure of merit for relevance to engineering in particular
  1.2. Scott Adams as a public figure
    1.2.1. Statements that exceed some threshold of acceptability (because otherwise this would have never come up)
      1.2.1.1. Definitions, sources and citations
      1.2.1.2. Counter-arguments would be made in response with definitions, sources, and citations
      1.2.1.3. Context of statements that exceed some threshold of acceptability

2. Reaction of carrier media
  2.1. Cessation of contracts
    2.1.1. Is cessation allowed within the contract?
      2.1.1.1. Compare to, for instance, Absolute Maximum Ratings of a component, rendering the application invalid
      2.1.1.2. Cost / benefit analysis regarding continuing or ceasing the contract

3. Reaction of audience
  3.1. In support of Scott Adams
    3.1.1. Those who claim it was a "woke" reason
    3.1.2. Those who claim it was a "cancel culture" reason
    3.1.3. Those who claim it was a "racism" reason (against Mr. Adams)
    3.1.4. Other reason
  3.2. Not in support of Scott Adams
    3.2.1. Those who claim it was a "racism" reason
    3.2.2. Other reason

4. Other items
  4.1. Definitions
    4.1.1. Define "woke"
    4.1.2. Define "cancel culture"
    4.1.3. Define "racism"
  4.2. Transitive rules
    4.2.1. If one invokes a particular definition, does that allow continued discussion of topics related to that definition?

At this point the actual topic (or topics) is somewhat loosely-defined; as if one got some initial specifications from Marketing, then updates from Sales a while later, then still more from Accounting, Manufacturing, etc. You know the deal; something quite rather akin to, well, various editions of the Dilbert comic strip.

Within an engineering forum it should be possible to develop answers to these questions. After all, obviously this subject is important enough that it has now generated 13 pages of comments, a fair percentage of which are contributed by Dave, so it would seem that this subject is endorsed as being important. Therefore, an itemized understanding, or a revision of the outline that clearly specifies the boundary conditions would allow for a more optimized discussion.

Or you could just lock this thread down. Or would that be cancelling? Is deleting posts also cancelling? Interesting how intricate this becomes!

[abeyer]

Fear is the most powerful emotion. And this is why people do not speak up or defend people or even try to inject some nuance into the discussion when people are being piled on. This is why cancellation and hate mobs work.

That's certainly part of it, but I think it's more than just fear. Social media in its various forms seems to be particularly good at stirring up these shit-storms, and there are populations that enjoy rolling in the muck taking one position or the other, but I think there also is a significant silent majority that are just ok not needing to be "right on the internet" even if they don't agree.

[Nominal Animal]

Or you could just lock this thread down. Or would that be cancelling? Is deleting posts also cancelling? Interesting how intricate this becomes!

Why not say your message out aloud?  "Play by my rules or I'll deem you a hypocrite."

[EEVblog]

I REPEAT, PLEASE NO MORE DISCUSSION ON RACISM HERE. Your post will be DELETED.

Dave, invocation of the term "woke" by definition implies a discussion of racism. That being the case, what is the topic of this thread, then?
*SNIP*
At this point the actual topic (or topics) is somewhat loosely-defined; as if one got some initial specifications from Marketing, then updates from Sales a while later, then still more from Accounting, Manufacturing, etc. You know the deal; something quite rather akin to, well, various editions of the Dilbert comic strip.

Within an engineering forum it should be possible to develop answers to these questions. After all, obviously this subject is important enough that it has now generated 13 pages of comments, a fair percentage of which are contributed by Dave, so it would seem that this subject is endorsed as being important. Therefore, an itemized understanding, or a revision of the outline that clearly specifies the boundary conditions would allow for a more optimized discussion.

Or you could just lock this thread down. Or would that be cancelling? Is deleting posts also cancelling? Interesting how intricate this becomes!

It's easy, if you can't stop talking about race then just stay away from this thread. I will not lock it down because a huge percentage of the engineering audience loves Dilbert and it's a huge blow to have it effective vanish.
All your claptrap above to me indicates that you should well and truly stay away from this thread, because you won't be able to help yourself. Just put it on your ignore list.

[Nominal Animal]

It'll be interesting to observe the reaction to AvE's BOLTR: Lucky Seven.
Scott Adams' audience was mainstream, AvEs somewhat less so.  Will AvE get labeled as a conspiracy theorist now?

[mendip_discovery]

Gotta love cancel culture.

Problem I often see if that companies rush to distance themselves as they fear any slowness would be seen as agreeing with the content and if the court of social media gets wound up things can get out of hand rather quickly.

In the UK there has been some anger over attempts to re-write books by Rahl Dahl to make them a little more woke. This then escalated as people pointed out that he made antisemitic comments, in a interview back in 1990 not long before he died and he was an old man then and just voicing an opinion. People were suggesting that the books should be removed from print.

I just wonder if going down this road we could end up not having anything becuase it only takes some small effort to find somthing that can be taken out of context by an originator and it will be cancelled. Imagine all of Sean Connery films being removed because of his comments towards women. Dilbert was one of the first online comics, and one that a majority of it nerd types read. Shame to loose all of that due to comment from the author.

[madires]

Dilbert was one of the first online comics, and one that a majority of it nerd types read. Shame to loose all of that due to comment from the author.

It's not because of the author's comment, it's some self-righteous mob bullying others as they are unable to understand the meaning of free speech and are also unable to accept that someone else might have a different opinion.

[langwadt]

It'll be interesting to observe the reaction to AvE's BOLTR: Lucky Seven.
Scott Adams' audience was mainstream, AvEs somewhat less so.  Will AvE get labeled as a conspiracy theorist now?

you haven't been paying attention, AvE has been labeled as all kinds of bad things

[tszaboo]

I can only thing of two possibilities for that, one is that people of a certain mindset read into it what they expect it to say or what fits their own agenda, or people that never bothered to read it at all simply parroting what someone else said about it.

IMHO They don't have the experience and patience to feel the nuance. A lot of these people are getting their daily dose of dopamine from tiktok and twitter, where you have 120 characters or 45 seconds to convey a message. There is no time in that to explore an idea. So they will label someone "in group" or "out group", good or bad.

[Zero999]

It's easy, if you can't stop talking about race then just stay away from this thread. I will not lock it down because a huge percentage of the engineering audience loves Dilbert and it's a huge blow to have it effective vanish.
All your claptrap above to me indicates that you should well and truly stay away from this thread, because you won't be able to help yourself. Just put it on your ignore list.

I accept you don't want this thread to turn into a general discussion about racism in society, but there is a racial element to this.  Some consider Scott's comments to be racist, whilst others disagree. I think he wouldn't have been cancelled, if he were black. He probably would have been subject to a lot of abuse, but he would have kept most of his contracts and his publisher wouldn't have dropped him. I would argue he's the victim of racism here. I know my position is subjective and controversial and don't expect anyone change their mind.

This opens up the question of what views are acceptable to hold and what are not? I think most people would agree, it's clearly unacceptable for someone to believe a certain ethic group don't deserve the same human rights as everyone else, but quite often it's difficult to tell whether an individual hold such views.

[james_s]

People are much nicer in real life.
Real world example, I met one my "haters" at a venue once. Someone who has gone to the trouble to publicly document stuff I'd done, but he introduced himself and we hung around having fun getting along great for a few hours talking about vintage tech stuff. I came away with a totally different opinion of him, and I'm guessing likewise him of me. We both simply ignored that any beef that ever happened between us.
Pro tip is, try to be nice to people who think are your enemy, they probably aren't as bad as you think.

I think it's the same sort of anonymity that people get behind the wheel of a car. Someone that cuts you off, flips you the bird and honks is likely to be far more timid and polite in a face to face interaction. The anonymity works both ways, on one side they feel shielded from their actions and less inclined to filter them the way they would in a face to face interaction, and in the other direction the person they are being a jerk to is words on a screen or a car rather than another person.

[james_s]

IMHO They don't have the experience and patience to feel the nuance. A lot of these people are getting their daily dose of dopamine from tiktok and twitter, where you have 120 characters or 45 seconds to convey a message. There is no time in that to explore an idea. So they will label someone "in group" or "out group", good or bad.

It's like we're creating a bunch of borderlines, with their black & white, all or nothing thinking. The behavior often imitates the "splitting" that people with BPD do too, where one day they see someone/something as all good and the next they might see the same person or thing as a horrible enemy.

[EEVblog]

It'll be interesting to observe the reaction to AvE's BOLTR: Lucky Seven.
Scott Adams' audience was mainstream, AvEs somewhat less so.  Will AvE get labeled as a conspiracy theorist now?

He already has been for doing a video supporting the Canadian truckers protest.

[EEVblog]

I haven't watch all of it, but there was an interesting discussion on the Scott Adams situation with Viva Frei on Hotep Jesus' podcast. I won't link it, search for if you want it.

I'm still getting my emails with new Dilberts, but Adams said that will stop shortly as there is a production buffer.
I still have my hard copy 20 years of Dilbert collection. I'd better get a hard copy of the 30 years collection before it gets pulled.