Author Topic: Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website  (Read 109058 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
In The US pretty much every immigrant group does better than the people whose families have been there for generations. Black immigrants do better on average then long term white Americans.

I suspect that's because immigrating here, especially doing so legally requires significant effort, so you automatically get a bias toward people that are motivated self-starters that want a piece of the "American dream". They come here looking to make a better life for themselves and their families, they come here by choice because they believe in what we as a nation have to offer. Those that have been here for generations have usually never known real hardship, they don't know how good they have it here, they take it for granted and squander their opportunity.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kim Christensen, TomKatt

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Here I strongly disagree. "Positive discrimination", or some kind of supportive actions, is needed in the beginning for any group in society that doesn't currently have equal rights. The mass of the majority will always by itself suppress minorities somehow, intentionally or unintentionally. How this support is done is another question. There will be individuals in the minority groups that will overstep (e.g. these overreactions that you talk about), but there is no need for people in the majority to feel threatened. As soon as a minority group no longer feel threatened, such incidents will diminish.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as "positive discrimination", it is discrimination, period, and in most civilized nations it is blatantly illegal. It seems to be acceptable to break the law these days though.
 
The following users thanked this post: Siwastaja

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us

So what women are not equal? We know that. They're are innate differences between the sexes, which are nothing to do with society and law.

The statistics you cite, don't prove women don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who were much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection.

With such twisted logic, we will surely plunge back to medieval times.


Huh? Twisted? Everything he said is objectively true, what part do you disagree with?
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
I am. Even though the Nordic countries top statistics in equality and lot of other things, Finland is still one of Europe's most dangerous countries when it comes to violence against women from people in close relationships. This is statistics from the government (Finnish and Swedish only) https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/10616/lahisuhdevakivalta-aiheuttaa-tutkimuksen-mukaan-merkittavasti-kustannuksia-terveys-sosiaali-ja-oikeuspalveluissa Every other woman has experienced violence in a relationship and 15-30 women die yearly due to violence in a relationship.
This is only one example.

This is called cherry picking. What are the percentages for workplace fatalities of men vs women in your country? How about the suicide rates? How about emotional abuse? Do you think physical violence is the only kind of violence and abuse that happens in relationships? Women have it easier in general, men get the shaft, of course if you cherry pick statistics and ignore anything that doesn't support your assertion you can make them say anything you want.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.

In what way, specifically?

In lots of ways.

Here is one specific example, editing classic books to remove offensive language, an easy one that was picked up by mainstream news outlets but it is far from the only one. The edited books will have the same title, they're presented as the same book except they're not.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/license-edit-ian-flemings-james-bond-novels-be-edited-remove-racist-content/Q74LY2FAWRFWRMIAXXUR7XAJCU/

I would certainly call quietly altering books orwellian, that was a central theme of '1984' from which the phrase 'orwellian' originated.

With respect to "classic" James Bond novels:
Long before the current bowdlerization, the original Fleming novels were replaced with novelizations of the film scripts.
This was done strictly for commercial reasons by the capitalist owners of the copyrights.
I'm not sure which versions are currently available.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20364
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
If we take the Marxist idea of artificially ensuring everyone is equal, to its logical conclusion, we surely plunge back into the times of Maoist China and the USSR.

Pro Tip: When arguing a subject that has nothing to do with communism, a sure way to lose any headway with us lefties is to keep bringing up communism.
Lol. I've voted for Labour and Liberal Democrat in the past. I've only drifted rightwards, after the left went out of control.

He should have known better than to have accused me of wanting to go back to the Middle Ages, which I did no do.  :palm:

And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.

I am. Even though the Nordic countries top statistics in equality and lot of other things, Finland is still one of Europe's most dangerous countries when it comes to violence against women from people in close relationships. This is statistics from the government (Finnish and Swedish only) https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/10616/lahisuhdevakivalta-aiheuttaa-tutkimuksen-mukaan-merkittavasti-kustannuksia-terveys-sosiaali-ja-oikeuspalveluissa Every other woman has experienced violence in a relationship and 15-30 women die yearly due to violence in a relationship.
This is only one example.

This is called cherry picking. What are the percentages for workplace fatalities of men vs women in your country? How about the suicide rates? How about emotional abuse? Do you think physical violence is the only kind of violence and abuse that happens in relationships? Women have it easier in general, men get the shaft, of course if you cherry pick statistics and ignore anything that doesn't support your assertion you can make them say anything you want.
Being culturally homogenous has helped.  Unfortunately Sweden has ruined it by allowing mass immigration.


So what women are not equal? We know that. They're are innate differences between the sexes, which are nothing to do with society and law.

The statistics you cite, don't prove women don't have equal rights to men, just they are more likely to be killed by men. This is because men are physically stronger than women and have higher testosterone levels, making them more prone to violent behaviour. By the same logic, you could argue men are subjugated by women, as they have a shorter life expectancy than women. Perhaps the healthcare system discriminates against men, who were much more likely to die from SARS-Cov-2 infection.

With such twisted logic, we will surely plunge back to medieval times.


Huh? Twisted? Everything he said is objectively true, what part do you disagree with?
The bit where I said women are not equal probably triggered him, even though I continued by describing how morally inferior men are, in terms of committing violent crime.  Incidentally men are also more likely to be killed by other men, than women are.

Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.

In what way, specifically?

In lots of ways.

Here is one specific example, editing classic books to remove offensive language, an easy one that was picked up by mainstream news outlets but it is far from the only one. The edited books will have the same title, they're presented as the same book except they're not.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/license-edit-ian-flemings-james-bond-novels-be-edited-remove-racist-content/Q74LY2FAWRFWRMIAXXUR7XAJCU/

I would certainly call quietly altering books orwellian, that was a central theme of '1984' from which the phrase 'orwellian' originated.

Meanwhile the UK has introduced thought crimes by outlawing silent prayer, within 150m of abortion clinics.
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/landmark-vote-introduces-thought-crime-laws-as-mps-criminalise-silent-prayer-at-abortion-clinics-nationwide
 

Offline TomKatt

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 529
  • Country: us
Meanwhile the UK has introduced thought crimes by outlawing silent prayer, within 150m of abortion clinics.
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/landmark-vote-introduces-thought-crime-laws-as-mps-criminalise-silent-prayer-at-abortion-clinics-nationwide
Not living in the UK or really that familiar with this issue, but a few Googles and my impression is that claim is biased and a politically charged interpretation of a law that simply tries to protect people seeking those services from harassment by others in that vicinity.   Harassment doesn't have to be physical or even verbal - I'm quite sure the people the law is trying to keep out of that buffer zone aren't just standing there in a silent meditative trance like the Dali Llama or something.

So, nobody is monitoring for 'thought crimes' or preventing them from praying.  I have no experience with it, but I suspect if prayers work they likely have more range than a Bluetooth signal, so those people don't have to get into the face of those attempting to receive services at that facility.  Trying to turn things into a religious fight like that only makes things worse.   If Christians want to really feel persecuted, they ought to transition to Muslim, Judaism or some religion that's really pushed around.
Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a PICt
 
The following users thanked this post: JohanH, newbrain

Offline JohanH

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 669
  • Country: fi

This is called cherry picking. What are the percentages for workplace fatalities of men vs women in your country? How about the suicide rates? How about emotional abuse? Do you think physical violence is the only kind of violence and abuse that happens in relationships? Women have it easier in general, men get the shaft, of course if you cherry pick statistics and ignore anything that doesn't support your assertion you can make them say anything you want.

I've heard that this is called whataboutism.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20364
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Meanwhile the UK has introduced thought crimes by outlawing silent prayer, within 150m of abortion clinics.
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/landmark-vote-introduces-thought-crime-laws-as-mps-criminalise-silent-prayer-at-abortion-clinics-nationwide
Not living in the UK or really that familiar with this issue, but a few Googles and my impression is that claim is biased and a politically charged interpretation of a law that simply tries to protect people seeking those services from harassment by others in that vicinity.   Harassment doesn't have to be physical or even verbal - I'm quite sure the people the law is trying to keep out of that buffer zone aren't just standing there in a silent meditative trance like the Dali Llama or something.

So, nobody is monitoring for 'thought crimes' or preventing them from praying.  I have no experience with it, but I suspect if prayers work they likely have more range than a Bluetooth signal, so those people don't have to get into the face of those attempting to receive services at that facility.  Trying to turn things into a religious fight like that only makes things worse.   If Christians want to really feel persecuted, they ought to transition to Muslim, Judaism or some religion that's really pushed around.
The law is unnecessary because there are already laws in place which prohibit harassment. Silent prayer is not harassment.

Islam certainly does have special privileges in the UK, but that's another matter.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
I've heard that this is called whataboutism.

I think that generally when people bring up "whataboutism" it is just a way of saying something along the lines of "You have brought up a valid point that goes against my view and the cognitive dissonance that creates makes me uncomfortable so I don't want to discuss it." It is a way of shutting down discussion of the bigger picture in order to focus on the cherry picked data in isolation.

Notice that you did not offer anything to counter my points at all, you simply shut down the discussion.
 

Offline Kim Christensen

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1819
  • Country: ca
And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.

It is irrelevant. It's about as relevant saying an orange is round when discussing the shape of the Earth with a flatter.
Communism is about economics, not race, gender, discrimination, etc... And it's pretty funny that you tout the USSR as an example since there was plenty of ethnic discrimination under the old Russian regime. They definitely weren't striving for the woke version of racial or gender equality.

 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20364
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.

It is irrelevant. It's about as relevant saying an orange is round when discussing the shape of the Earth with a flatter.
Communism is about economics, not race, gender, discrimination, etc... And it's pretty funny that you tout the USSR as an example since there was plenty of ethnic discrimination under the old Russian regime. They definitely weren't striving for the woke version of racial or gender equality.
The USSR practised affirmative action and was probably one of the first countries to do so. Look up Korenizatsiia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia?useskin=vector

Marxism is not just about economics, it's also social philosophy. Advocating for equal outcome i.e. equity for all ethnicities races, sex/gender, classes etc. is Marxist, by definition of the word.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
I can't locate the book on my shelves right now, but a good history of political philosophy (starting with Aristotle and Plato and continuing to the present) that I read over ten years ago started its discussion of Marxism by stating that one must disentangle Marx's own political philosophy from the version after he was canonized by the Soviet government.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kim Christensen

Offline Kim Christensen

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1819
  • Country: ca
And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.

It is irrelevant. It's about as relevant saying an orange is round when discussing the shape of the Earth with a flatter.
Communism is about economics, not race, gender, discrimination, etc... And it's pretty funny that you tout the USSR as an example since there was plenty of ethnic discrimination under the old Russian regime. They definitely weren't striving for the woke version of racial or gender equality.
The USSR practised affirmative action and was probably one of the first countries to do so. Look up Korenizatsiia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia?useskin=vector

This ended in 1937... Maybe you should have read more than just the first half of that Wiki link.

Quote
Marxism is not just about economics, it's also social philosophy. Advocating for equal outcome i.e. equity for all ethnicities races, sex/gender, classes etc. is Marxist, by definition of the word.

Then you should have used the correct word (Marxism) in the first place. Communism as practiced by the USSR was not the same as the Marxism envisioned by the German philosopher Karl. Russia was under communist rule for far longer than the short period of idealized Marxism that it started out as.

 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Dave specifically warned us to not talk about socialism, I don't recall if he said anything about communism but that is probably best avoided. Economic ideology is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Dave specifically warned us to not talk about socialism, I don't recall if he said anything about communism but that is probably best avoided. Economic ideology is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.

Seems pointless in me even trying. I wake up, chekc the forum, and it's just pages of people back at it again  :palm:
 

Offline fourfathom

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2005
  • Country: us
Dave specifically warned us to not talk about socialism, I don't recall if he said anything about communism but that is probably best avoided. Economic ideology is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.

Seems pointless in me even trying. I wake up, chekc the forum, and it's just pages of people back at it again  :palm:

But it's polite, and I personally find it interesting.  One of the reasons I frequent EEVBlog is for the social interaction and wide-ranging discussions among smart people.  I come for the technology, but I stay for the people.  FWIW.
We'll search out every place a sick, twisted, solitary misfit might run to! -- I'll start with Radio Shack.
 
The following users thanked this post: PlainName

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4931
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Dave specifically warned us to not talk about socialism, I don't recall if he said anything about communism but that is probably best avoided. Economic ideology is not directly relevant to the topic at hand.

Seems pointless in me even trying. I wake up, chekc the forum, and it's just pages of people back at it again  :palm:

Maybe you should write a satirical cartoon strip about it... wcpgw?
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
In The US pretty much every immigrant group does better than the people whose families have been there for generations. Black immigrants do better on average then long term white Americans.

I suspect that's because immigrating here, especially doing so legally requires significant effort, so you automatically get a bias toward people that are motivated self-starters that want a piece of the "American dream". They come here looking to make a better life for themselves and their families, they come here by choice because they believe in what we as a nation have to offer. Those that have been here for generations have usually never known real hardship, they don't know how good they have it here, they take it for granted and squander their opportunity.
That is the usual claim made, but there doesn't seem much hard research to see what the real issue is. In the US both African and Carribean immigrants do well. In the UK African immigrants do much better than Carribean immigrants. That doesn't seem to fit your model.

 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
I still try not to discuss specifically prohibited topics, I appreciate that some off topic discussion is allowed, I don't think it's good to push the boundaries.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
That is the usual claim made, but there doesn't seem much hard research to see what the real issue is. In the US both African and Carribean immigrants do well. In the UK African immigrants do much better than Carribean immigrants. That doesn't seem to fit your model.

There are probably additional factors involved. It would be nice if we could study this sort of thing without people immediately flipping out and attacking the motivation behind the study.

Perhaps it there are additional reasons behind why some people from a particular country would choose the UK vs the USA. I doubt the average US or UK citizen would be able to look at someone from Africa or the Carribean and tell which place they're from, so I think the discrepancy is unlikely to be caused by prejudice.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Perhaps it there are additional reasons behind why some people from a particular country would choose the UK vs the USA. I doubt the average US or UK citizen would be able to look at someone from Africa or the Carribean and tell which place they're from, so I think the discrepancy is unlikely to be caused by prejudice.
Really? Do you have serious difficulty telling Africans from Carribeans from locals? They have very different cultures.
 

Online iMo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5572
  • Country: va
Frankly, it sounds funny to me when the people call today everything "progressive", or "woke", or "somehow left" marxistic. They have a little understanding of history, imho. Marxism has been created around 1850. The russian bolsheviks in 1917 (~70 years after marxism has been created) were looking for a "new" philosophy, easily applicable into the ecosystem of the russian feudalism, helping them jumping over the stage of a "capitalism" straight into a "new bolsheviks socialism",  backing their bolsheviks politics in russia - and they chose marxism (being almost unknown at that time, forgotten and gathering dust, being the best fit for Lenin at that time, perhaps because he was infiltrated by Germans - btw. the vast majority of russian bolsheviks were quite surprised with that theory Lenin and Co. started to mess with and afaik they considered it strange and were not happy with it). And soon they started to interpret all that marxistic stuff at their will, making "world" politics, and export it as the tool for their imperialistic efforts.. Calling anything to be "marxistic" these days is a BS.. With no bolsheviks like Lenin and Co. in 1917 the "marxism" will be an unknown category today..
« Last Edit: March 10, 2023, 10:56:40 pm by imo »
Readers discretion is advised..
 
The following users thanked this post: Kim Christensen

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Really? Do you have serious difficulty telling Africans from Carribeans from locals? They have very different cultures.

I wouldn't know, I don't know the first thing about Africa or the Caribbean other than they are both predominantly dark skinned people. Africa is an entire continent consisting of dozens of countries, the Caribbean is also a large and diverse region. I expect both have widely varying cultures and physical appearances. I'm not sure how I would know which one a person is from.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Really? Do you have serious difficulty telling Africans from Carribeans from locals? They have very different cultures.

I wouldn't know, I don't know the first thing about Africa or the Caribbean other than they are both predominantly dark skinned people. Africa is an entire continent consisting of dozens of countries, the Caribbean is also a large and diverse region. I expect both have widely varying cultures and physical appearances. I'm not sure how I would know which one a person is from.
True, but most of the emigrants come from one of a few locations, so the people who have migrated to America and Europe are much less diverse than Africa.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf