General > General Technical Chat
Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website
MK14:
--- Quote from: wilfred on March 14, 2023, 11:41:40 am ---I perfectly understand what you're saying. But whatever moderation the thread needs it will need wherever it sits. As long as the same members can post in it. I'm just saying put non electronics topics in a special "of interest to engineers" section for non-electronics discussion. I don't want trump and covid and gender discussion period but moderating that out still needs to be done as Dave has had to request repeatedly in this topic. And those who don't want any of that even to the extent it would be of general interest to engineers in an "electronics" board will also be satisfied. The reason is really the same as the reason for putting Cooking outside the General Technical Chat. And don't forget the General Technical Chat" was once simply "General Chat" so there was a thought at one time to tighten down what is considered topical for this board. That's all I'm saying.
--- End quote ---
I'm happy for our opinions on the matter to differ. I'm not 100% either way, myself. But on overall balance, I think it would change this forum, for the worse.
Tomorokoshi:
Including the original post:
--- Quote from: Tomorokoshi on March 14, 2023, 03:02:34 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 14, 2023, 02:25:09 am ---
--- Quote from: Black Phoenix on March 14, 2023, 01:48:07 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 13, 2023, 11:00:48 pm ---Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
--- End quote ---
Jesus Dave, just close the thread. It lost is purpose after the first few posts.
--- End quote ---
No it hasn't, it's a place to talk about Dilbert and Adams and what's happening, and cancel culture. As I said before, it potentially impacts all of us. Things could always evolve in the Dilbert universe, so best to keep it open.
--- End quote ---
Please define "cancel culture".
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 14, 2023, 09:35:07 am ---
--- Quote from: Tomorokoshi on March 14, 2023, 03:02:34 am ---Please define "cancel culture".
--- End quote ---
If you have to ask that then I'd prefer that you not particiate in this thread. You are clearly not here to talk about Dilbert and Adams.
--- End quote ---
So Dave, here is the problem. You want to talk about Dilbert and Scott Adams. You do not want to talk about politics, Covid, etc. However, the term "cancel culture" is inherently political. So is "woke" for that matter. Both are tied up in the subject that shall not be talked about.
Now, if one were to review this outline:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4736891/#msg4736891
It would actually seem to be a framework, modified in any form you wish to avoid the subject that shall not be talked about, except that it also is an invitation to define "cancel culture", "woke", etc. The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules; put in engineering terms, you have a case of bus contention. Mismatched impedances. while(1).
There are very good reasons for asking for a definition, particularly with a contentious topic like... grounding. Diodes. Approvals. All of which can get expensively derailed when someone in, let's say, a project management role thinks they understand something, dictates the design because of schedule or budget reasons, and then encounters a continuing series of engineering and implementation problems because the fundamental concept was not understood.
As such I am still interested in a definition of "cancel culture" from you. And, being good engineering practice, a few more questions:
- Is "cancel culture" a politically-topical term?
- Is "woke" a politically-topical term?
ebastler:
--- Quote from: Tomorokoshi on March 14, 2023, 12:07:03 pm ---The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules [...]
--- End quote ---
That's the gist of it, in my view, and this is not the first thread where that happens. The related forum rule should be amended to something like: "Discussions of politics are allowed if, and only if, the topic is close to Dave's heart."
For the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion thread, one could at least argue that it was workplace-related. For this thread, "it may affect all of us" is the only justification I have read from Dave as to why this topic would qualify for a technical forum. Spoiler alert: That justification would apply to any political topic.
If this is how Dave wants to run the forum, that's up to him of course. But I would suggest amending the rules as suggested above to stay honest. The rule as it stands does not seem to reflect reality:
--- Quote ---There are a couple of pet topics that always get out of control on forums, namely, religion, politics, guns, war, conspiracy theories, and the latest Current Thing that's happening or being championed by the public. They are not welcome here.
--- End quote ---
TimFox:
Back to Dilbert itself:
At the end of the previous millennium, there was a short-lived (two seasons) animated version of Dilbert on US television.
I noticed that it was actually more bitter than the newspaper version at that time.
Nevertheless, my favorite was the ninth episode of the first series, on the topic of Y2K, as Dilbert's workplace faces the problem of an obsolescent IT system.
It traced the problem back to 1975, when Wally was a fresh young engineer, not yet broken.
When he started there, the senior staff showed him around and pointed out that they used two places to indicate the year (i.e. "87", not "1987").
He asked, "won't that be a problem in 25 years?", to which the staff laughed.
tooki:
--- Quote from: ebastler on March 14, 2023, 12:35:49 pm ---
--- Quote from: Tomorokoshi on March 14, 2023, 12:07:03 pm ---The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules [...]
--- End quote ---
That's the gist of it, in my view, and this is not the first thread where that happens. The related forum rule should be amended to something like: "Discussions of politics are allowed if, and only if, the topic is close to Dave's heart."
For the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion thread, one could at least argue that it was workplace-related. For this thread, "it may affect all of us" is the only justification I have read from Dave as to why this topic would qualify for a technical forum. Spoiler alert: That justification would apply to any political topic.
If this is how Dave wants to run the forum, that's up to him of course. But I would suggest amending the rules as suggested above to stay honest. The rule as it stands does not seem to reflect reality:
--- Quote ---There are a couple of pet topics that always get out of control on forums, namely, religion, politics, guns, war, conspiracy theories, and the latest Current Thing that's happening or being championed by the public. They are not welcome here.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
I’m glad you said all of the above. It’s exactly how I feel, but I was afraid to say it, lest it just look like whining from someone who he’d already told off in this thread.
I, too, am perplexed at the “discuss ‘cancel culture’ and ‘wokeness’ without discussing politics” decree, as they’re completely political terms (at least nowadays, if there even was ever a time when they weren’t). It’s as preposterous as saying “discuss racism without mentioning race”.
As for solutions: 20 years ago, I was a mod/admin of a large Mac forum that at the time had similar active membership as this one. We tried keeping politics out and it just didn’t work. The solution we came upon was to create a “political lounge” where special (looser) rules were in effect. It was spectacularly effective at being a lightning rod for the political discussion. It allowed us to easily keep the entire rest of the forum politics-free. I literally never looked at the political lounge (I was younger and had zero interest in politics at the time) and could focus on the subforums that covered my areas of expertise.
I use the past tense but that forum actually still exists, though traffic has dwindled to almost zero. :(
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version