Author Topic: Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website  (Read 108960 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: de
James, this is not about remembering the exact wording. "Questioning X" and "questioning whether a law that bans X should exist" are essentially opposites -- which apparently you still don't get?

Edit, to elaborate:

"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."
~ "I think X should be legal."
~ "I am advocating for X."

See?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2023, 10:08:49 pm by ebastler »
 

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7681
  • Country: ca
Looks like he has 109k followers on Locals. Don't know how many paid though.
Following (unpaid) with my existing Locals account I can see his first Dilbert Reborn strip.
He recently gave permission for people to use but but not actively republish the strip, so here is the first strip, 1 of 3, I'll just post the first one. Dilbert dies and was cremated.
You guessed it, in the next one he's reborn from the dumpster.



Dave, thanks for giving some continuity about the comic strip, post attack. I dislike seeing Dilbert go behind a paywall and think it's not practical.
I've enjoyed Dilbert for decades, many good laughs and I don't have to agree with all of Mr. Adams personal politics, like water off a duck's back. More important is social media distorting what he says and his cheeseball one man syndication, Wiki deleting Dilbert references to cover their ass.

Today, the utterance of one single word can destroy your career, reputation, image - poof just like that. At least Chris Rock can still do standup, offend many people for the laughs.
There is a new mental illness where people feel powerful being politically correct, and thrive on policing others, calling up the social media brigade and cancelling them.
It's amazing how little it takes to derail a thread, trash the S/N ratio, and then it falls to "cancel the thread" about being cancelled  :-DD
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
James, this is not about remembering the exact wording. "Questioning X" and "questioning whether a law that bans X should exist" are essentially opposites -- which apparently you still don't get?

Edit, to elaborate:

"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."
~ "I think X should be legal."
~ "I am advocating for X."

See?

No I don't see. That is a logical fallacy, it isn't the way I think at all. I had no idea that some people actually thought that way, it has been eye opening.

Somebody else posted a great example, marijuana. I question whether a law banning marijuana should exist, in my case I do actually think marijuana should be legal, but I absolutely am not advocating for it.

Same with cigarettes, I hate cigarettes, I think they're disgusting, I absolutely do not think anyone should smoke cigarettes and most certainly am not advocating for them, I still don't think cigarettes should be illegal. It's a personal choice, if someone wishes to make that choice I'm not going to try to force them.

Same with junkfood. I think people should try to eat healthy, I don't think they should over-indulge in fast food and other junk, but I certainly don't think McDonalds should be outlawed.

There are many, many, many things that I dislike, disagree with, would never do, think should be broadly discouraged etc that I don't think should be against the law. What part of this do you not understand?

Some laws that I question I don't necessarily think shouldn't exist, I just question them, I think it should be discussed to see if maybe there is a more effective alternative. I listed a few examples earlier in this thread if you care to look. There seems to be an inability to see the difference between questioning (testing, discussing) something and having a firm opinion that it is false. That is difficult for me to comprehend because it is so counter to how I think, and the difference is so obvious and clear cut. I think this is perhaps a significant part of the root of this whole culture war, people who have these drastically different logical short circuits. If in their mind questioning something is literally equal to advocating for its opposite then I can see where some of these battles come from. Hopefully you can accept that many(most?) people simply do not jump to that conclusion.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2023, 11:02:35 pm by james_s »
 
The following users thanked this post: KaneTW

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
But you no longer think that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", right? Glad we got at least to that little eye-opener.

I'm not sure what you're saying, I never have said that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", nothing has changed.

"I question whether there should be a law banning X" absolutely does not equal "I advocate X", not at all.

"Questioning" something is not the same as saying "I think something is false" again two different things.
 

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: de
You are evading the prior point, James. You had mocked the earlier post by Kim C. based on your claim that he supposedly equaled "questioning X" with "advocating X" -- which would indeed be contradictory. But you had either read is original post sloppily, or not understood it, since Kim actually started from a statement saying the opposite. You certainly misquoted him.

I take it that you have realized by now that "questioning whether a law against X should exist" is not the same at all as "questioning X". I am glad we have achieved at least this little eye-opener.
 

Online ebastler

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: de
I never have said that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", nothing has changed.

Sure you did. You misquoted (and apparently misinterpreted) Kim Christensen's quote, which said the former, as the latter, verbatim. And then you started to rant about "bizarre logic".

I keep coming back to the "manipulative intent or cognitive limitations?" question.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
You are evading the prior point, James. You had mocked the earlier post by Kim C. based on your claim that he supposedly equaled "questioning X" with "advocating X" -- which would indeed be contradictory. But you had either read is original post sloppily, or not understood it, since Kim actually started from a statement saying the opposite. You certainly misquoted him.

I take it that you have realized by now that "questioning whether a law against X should exist" is not the same at all as "questioning X". I am glad we have achieved at least this little eye-opener.

You see, this is what the entire "free for all" section would be like. Just thousands of posts like this, but instead of electronics related it would all be about religion, guns, covid, politics, social justice, etc etc  ::)
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14, fourfathom

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Dave, thanks for giving some continuity about the comic strip, post attack.

That's the point of keeping this thread open, but is seems some want it shut down.

Quote
I dislike seeing Dilbert go behind a paywall and think it's not practical.

I think it's practical, I just dislike it being behind only one paywall (Locals), and effectively being tied to his other "bonus" content that people may not want.
I'd prefer to pay less for just Dilbert, and I'm absolutely sure I'm not alone. It's a poor business move IMO.
$70/year for Dilbert is at the "do I really need it?" end of the pricing spectrum.

And like it or not, Locals is seen as effectively a politically "right wing" place where all the rejects from Patreon and other places went.
I'm sure there are countless left leaning Dilbert fans who just want to see Dilbert and don't want to, or would prefer not to be, associated with Locals. And/or don't want to pay a premium for other content they don't care about.
Where is the "Just give me Dilbert" option?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2023, 11:40:03 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
My open letter to Adams, Like/Retweet if you agree so he sees it.
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1635791136521596933
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
I never have said that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", nothing has changed.

Sure you did. You misquoted (and apparently misinterpreted) Kim Christensen's quote, which said the former, as the latter, verbatim. And then you started to rant about "bizarre logic".

I keep coming back to the "manipulative intent or cognitive limitations?" question.

Then what is the exact quote that I have mis-quoted? Either I misread something or you are going around in circles for reasons I'm unsure of.
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13157
  • Country: ch
That's the point of keeping this thread open, but is seems some want it shut down.
Nah, just fair treatment.

And like it or not, Locals is seen as effectively a politically "right wing" place where all the rejects from Patreon and other places went.
Eh, that’s likely a feature, not a bug, to him.
 
The following users thanked this post: newbrain

Offline KaneTW

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 811
  • Country: de
James, this is not about remembering the exact wording. "Questioning X" and "questioning whether a law that bans X should exist" are essentially opposites -- which apparently you still don't get?

Edit, to elaborate:

"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."
~ "I think X should be legal."
~ "I am advocating for X."

See?

No. What?
"I question whether a law banning X should exist" does not mean advocating for X, at all.

Criminal laws are the ultima ratio of the government. Any law is a restriction on personal freedoms, and laws should not be made solely to appease morals. (This is not my personal opinion, this is literally a basic principle of any modern democracy/Rechtsstaat)
You can absolutely be against a law existing but not consider the underlying thing acceptable.

Here's just one example:
I question whether banning drug ownership makes sense. It drives the black market and makes safe drug use harder. I do not advocate for drug use, and drug use will exist regardless of whether it's banned or not.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
My open letter to Adams, Like/Retweet if you agree so he sees it.
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1635791136521596933

He replied.
Doesn't seem interested, and said it's "Too dangerous in the wild".
So Locals only it will stay it seems. No surprise, he also has a personal financial stake in Locals I believe, so makes sense.
But he's always preeching "take the free money", but won't do it himself.
 
The following users thanked this post: MK14

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
That's the point of keeping this thread open, but is seems some want it shut down.
Nah, just fair treatment.

Would "fair treatment" be that I delete every off-topic post here?
People just can't seem to help themselves going off the rails.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
And like it or not, Locals is seen as effectively a politically "right wing" place where all the rejects from Patreon and other places went.
Eh, that’s likely a feature, not a bug, to him.

You do know he's not "right wing", right?
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
You do know he's not "right wing", right?

Everyone is "right wing" if they're not "left wing" in a world of absolutes. I know very little about Adams' politics overall and I'd be content to keep it that way. I've personally been accused of being both right wing and a leftist by two different people in the same day.  :-//  All it takes is one single comment and some will interpolate a whole picture of you in their head.
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15802
  • Country: fr
All it takes is one single comment and some will interpolate a whole picture of you in their head.

On social media, sometimes even just a single word is enough for that.
Heck, even a smiley can be enough.

Always remember that what you think about others and what you think they think about you is just all in your head.
 

Offline wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1388
  • Country: au
You do know he's not "right wing", right?

Looking down the list of titles for his YT channel "Coffee with Scott Adams" sure looks like he's right wing. And I saw you say he has a financial interest in Local.com "No surprise, he also has a personal financial stake in Locals I believe, so makes sense. But he's always preeching "take the free money", but won't do it himself."

If calculating the risk of financial blowback and then lighting the fuse to gain notoriety for his own financial benefit on Local.com in which he has an interest is not "taking the free money"  then what is? He said it himself that he got exactly what he wanted.

I'm not interested in spending an hour (or more) each day listening to him but those easily manipulated will lap up his smarmy style.

Not that I expect to bother following up in a years' time to see what Dilbert looks like but I'm sure it will be unedifying.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5571
  • Country: us
I haven't checked to verify the assertion that Adams is right wing.  But it really shouldn't matter.  It isn't OK to do things to folks that have right of center politics or those with left of center politics.

Where this issue gets fuzzy is the commercial aspect.  A few years ago a singing group in the US that catered to the country western crowd, The Dixie Chicks, started publicly going against their audiences political views at concerts.  They were booed and immediately lost sales and thence contracts.  I have no problem with that.  When you are an entertainer you depend on your audiences support and throwing dirt in the eyes of an audience isn't how you get its support.  A similar thing happened to a florist in a city I lived in.  The that city two thirds of the high paying jobs were associated with the military-industrial complex.  He took to posting signs with a strong left leaning viewpoint and calling anyone who didn't agree a liar and/or idiot.  Strangely many of his customers lost motivation to spend money there.   Again, I have no problem with that.   In this latter case there was no organized campaign, it just happened.  There was a minor degree of organization in the Dixie Chicks case, but not a lot. 

Nominal Animal has clearly broken down the lines where this is problematic.  And it seems that those lines may have been crossed in the Adams case.  For those who feel that the politics of Mr. Adams are justification for crossing those lines, consider the situation with the Hollywood blacklisting which impacted entertainers with left of center views in the US in the 1940s and 1950s.  This is now considered a horrible and unfair thing.  How is it different than cancelling Mr. Adams?
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s, Nominal Animal, KaneTW

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
If calculating the risk of financial blowback and then lighting the fuse to gain notoriety for his own financial benefit on Local.com in which he has an interest is "not taking the free money"  then what is?

"not taking the free money" is:
1) Not using the new Twitter Subscription feature when you have nearly 1M followers
2) Not getting control of the Dilbert website or starting a new one to offer paid subcriptions there
3) Not using other popular platforms for paid content like Substack for example

Doesn't sound like he's even considering it. That's not even thinking about picking up free money.
 

Offline wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1388
  • Country: au
If calculating the risk of financial blowback and then lighting the fuse to gain notoriety for his own financial benefit on Local.com in which he has an interest is "not taking the free money"  then what is?

"not taking the free money" is:
1) Not using the new Twitter Subscription feature when you have nearly 1M followers
2) Not getting control of the Dilbert website or starting a new one to offer paid subcriptions there
3) Not using other popular platforms for paid content like Substack for example

Doesn't sound like he's even considering it. That's not even thinking about picking up free money.

I went and looked up what Substak is. It says on the front page "Substack lets independent writers and podcasters publish directly to their audience and get paid through subscriptions."

Isn't that what he is doing on Local? I went there and looked at his "coffee with scott adams " intro video where he says straight up he is moving away from the big tech platforms to get away from censorship and making his content available through subscription.

He can use whatever URL he chooses but if he is selling subscription content on Local, then for you to claim he doesn't do it on the three platforms you mentioned hardly sounds convincing.
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7198
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
The more times a theory holds up to being tested, the more confident we can be that the theory is truth, but it's never really 100% proven. Science encourages continuous testing and questioning of everything, and occasionally things long believed to be true turn out to be incorrect.

Just to add, often people will constantly raise the bar for "proof" if they don't believe in a finding, or lower the bar to ridiculousness if they want something to be true.  Because you cannot really prove a negative, cognitive bias skews peoples views on what constitutes evidence so if a study is negative - it just wasn't precise enough, or wasn't large enough.  If its positive - no matter how small or poorly designed - it must prove my theory right!   Case in point the whole silly hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin debacle - where people are still quoting obviously fake studies.
Face masks are another one. The evidence now points in the direction they're completely ineffective, yet many still hold onto bad studies which state otherwise. Heck I was one of those who thought they were effective, yet my opinion has changed, in light of new evidence.

The evidence doesn't point in that direction at all.  Sources?
The evidence definitely points in that direction, see DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12424.  Specifically, cloth and surgical masks are ineffective in stopping SARS-Cov-2 transmission.  (This is a meta-analysis, combining the results of 12 studies, only one of which showed any benefit from cloth or surgical masks.)

Edit:  It was pointed to me in a PM that I am be mischaracterising the conclusions of that study.  True; their results were summarized as "Fourteen studies were included in this study. One preclinical and 1 observational cohort clinical study found significant benefit of masks in limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Eleven RCTs in a meta-analysis studying other respiratory illnesses found no significant benefit of masks (±hand hygiene) for influenza-like-illness symptoms nor laboratory confirmed viruses. One RCT found a significant benefit of surgical masks compared with cloth masks." with their conclusions (which sound odd to me, more like someone wishing for more research funding), "There is limited available preclinical and clinical evidence for face mask benefit in SARS-CoV-2. RCT evidence for other respiratory viral illnesses shows no significant benefit of masks in limiting transmission but is of poor quality and not SARS-CoV-2 specific. There is an urgent need for evidence from randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy of surgical and cloth masks on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and user reported outcomes such as comfort and compliance."

Addendum: One of the most cited articles on the efficacy of cloth and surgical masks wrt. seasonal influenza, including coronaviruses but not explicitly SARS-CoV-2 (because the article is from 2011), DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir238 (cited 72 times), showed that cloth and surgical masks are rather inefficient in preventing transmission; that basically, N95 (FFP2 in Europe) and eye protection is needed to prevent transmission of such viruses.  It is a clearly written article, so I do recommend everyone interested in the subject read it.

In any case, regardless of the two studies above, looking at e.g. NIH PubMed for 'sars-cov-2' and 'mask', the conclusions are best summarized as being from "face masks could help reduce transmissions" to "there is very little evidence to support that face masks reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission".  But again, do feel free to check.

My point is that what evidence there is, points that cloth and surgical masks have not shown to be effective, only inconclusive or having little to no effect; whereas consistent hand hygiene (in earlier studies), N95/FFP2 masks when correctly worn and eye protection, do seem to provide significant protection.  (But seeing how the majority cannot even seem to be able to correctly wear surgical masks, widespread correct use of N95/FFP2 masks is unrealistic.)
« Last Edit: March 15, 2023, 07:07:24 pm by Nominal Animal »
 
The following users thanked this post: Zero999

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9337
  • Country: fi
One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.

That sort of "cancel" has always occurred and always will, part of being a human. "There's the door", "you are not welcome at our club".

However, what is meant by "cancel culture" is (semi-)organized large-scale appeal to others, by using means such as threats. "Make X not welcome at your club, or else we will use this same extortion tactic against you because someone always gives us way because we have power".

That's a big difference.

However, I don't think cancel culture could be fought against by concentrating on the cancel mob. They are beyond salvation, and finally, they have freedom of speech, too. The solution is to stop giving way to the extortion tactics. For example, trust your employees and your own set of rules and don't fire them only because someone asked you to. The actual dirty work is always done by people who do not support the cancel mob or cancel culture, out of stupidity, laziness, fear, or combination thereof. This is the problem.
 
The following users thanked this post: EEVblog, james_s, Nominal Animal

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7198
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
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”.
I find this extremely interesting, because I do not see 'cancel culture' or 'wokeness' as political, but purely social or sociological concepts (used to further specific political goals, but those political goals varying across time); and I see racism emerging from in-group/out-group preferences, based on phenotypes (observable characteristics), without any inherent connection to race, only to phenotypes.

I understand that may sound like quibbling, but I'm being precise and literal here; ignore any apparent subtext, because none is intended.

(The emphasis on phenotypes is important, because it involves cultural and behavioural aspects.  For example, those working outdoors will have facial tans, separating them from the nobility that does not do so.  Even though they were of exactly the same race, this difference provides a phenotypical basis for behaviour that exactly matches 'racism'.  In Europe, such 'racism' was extremely common for centuries.)

It does really irk me that people do not see that the definition of racism as oppression by majority towards a minority, is complete ideological bullshit, because it does not match any sociological statistics, ever.  As long as humans have had urban societies, they have been ruled by a minority, asserting power over the majority.  That minority, be it pharaohs, kings, nobility, or bankers, have also all considered themselves as better than those they rule over, and have always worried about the "purity of their blood" –– which in my opinion, is a direct analog of "race", in terms of racism or in-group/out-group attitudes.
The entire concept was created as an ideological tool to push class struggle to the forefront of politics!

As to 'cancel culture', I've already pointed out how it performs the same sociological function as shunning has for thousands of years.
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7198
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist."
I vehemently disagree.

The verb question can be understood in either neutral way, "to interrogate, to ask for information", or in a negative way, "to raise/have doubts about".  Neither of them equates to an assertion.  Therefore, your approximation is incorrect.

In other words,

"I question whether a law banning X should exist."
~ "I would like to know whether a law banning X should exist." / "I have doubts whether a law banning X should exist."

See?

Edit: In particular, note the interrogative in both interpretations.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2023, 06:33:36 am by Nominal Animal »
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf