General > General Technical Chat

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

<< < (117/222) > >>

EEVblog:
Adams again reiterated today that the only way to get Dilbert from now on will be via locals. And that he is relieved that he now no longer has the pressure of what he can and can't say in the comic.

james_s:

--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:13:57 am ---Is it though?
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow? I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil. So yes indeed, some things are beyond question. The real debate is what belongs in "the list" of banned ideas, and not whether the act of cancelling is good or evil.

--- End quote ---

You can absolutely question whether murder is appropriate. There are well established laws already against *advocating* murder, you cannot incite violence, you cannot make direct threats, you cannot slander an individual, but it is by no means a banned idea. You are free to write a book or essay about murder, you can discuss murder, you can stage a pretend murder mystery for entertainment, there are movies about murder.

Nothing belongs in the list of banned ideas, and the act of cancelling (mob bullying) is always evil, period.

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:13:57 am ---If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow? I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil. So yes indeed, some things are beyond question. The real debate is what belongs in "the list" of banned ideas, and not whether the act of cancelling is good or evil.

--- End quote ---

It is possible to talk about and have different opinions on the two things at the same things.
For example, you can support someone being booted from a social media patform for some view, but not being de-banked or denied another service like Uber for just their views. Or denined some fundemental service.
For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".

Kim Christensen:

--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 01:18:30 am ---You can absolutely question whether murder is appropriate. There are well established laws already against *advocating* murder,

--- End quote ---

You contradict yourself right there.

HuronKing:

--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 01:18:30 am ---Nothing belongs in the list of banned ideas, and the act of cancelling (mob bullying) is always evil, period.

--- End quote ---

Let's flip this script for a moment. As far as I'm able to tell (so correct me if I'm wrong) the discontinuing of the Dilbert comics from all the major newspapers happened before there was any mob rallied up to petition the newspapers to do so. If anything, it seems that as soon as Adams said what he said, they were already pulling it.

I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here? There seems to be some unstated assumption that Scott Adams is *entitled* to have his comic strip run in these newspapers because he is rich, famous, and has done so for decades regardless of whatever stuff he says that offends the editorial boards of these newspapers.

But in reality, it's really the opinions of these editors and corporate managers that matter. They're not on Twitter bullying Adams. They may just straight up disagree with him and say "ya know what? We don't want you on our platform anymore." And that's that. Indeed, it's been pointed out here that half the country probably finds Dilbert mildly amusing - or doesn't give two-damns about what he said.

So by laissez-faire libertarian ideology... they, the editors, have every right to pull his strips from their platforms. Regardless if even the majority of the country wants Adams to continue to be published in their newspapers. In fact, this is how ALL mass media works - right-wing, left-wing, doesn't matter. Rupert Murdoch, for example, does not give a shit about your free speech or mine - only the agenda they care about. This is the exact opposite of a mob. It's a very, very small contingent of corporate leaders who make these decisions.

This goes back to what I said much, much earlier in this thread. Corporations are people (so a single CEO can wield a HUGE amount of power to ensure someone they don't like never works again). Money is speech. The more money you have, the more speech you have. And these corporations control the algorithms that show you the media you get exposed to.

This is why I'm not persuaded by appeals to the irrationality of mob bullying - or even that it actually exists. The mob doesn't even know what is happening unless the algorithm shows it to them... and this is exactly the kind of discourse our technocracy has created. In some ways, we asked for this because we asked for media feeds to be built customized to our desires, beliefs, and interests.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod