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

[MK14]

It's interesting, because.

If they are considered an engineer, that means that engineers (at least one), can create entertaining/funny comics and things.

But if they are NOT considered an engineer.  It means that a non-engineer, can have the insight/capabilities, to interestingly pick up on engineers, how they think and things like that.

So, either way, it is interesting to know.

But he's not an engineer anymore, or for a long time even if he was, he's a comic artists. What makes someone an engineer? A degree in engineering? Experience doing engineering work? The mindset and thought process? I would argue it's mostly the latter in this case. Also of course engineers can create entertaining/funny things. I've worked with many engineers that had a great sense of humor.

It was poorly worded on my part.  I've edited it, so it is better, but still far from perfect.

[Nominal Animal]

A lot of musicians are jerks, idiots and generally people I wouldn't want to associate with. That is totally irrelevant in terms of me enjoying the music they create. I don't care, at all.

The same applies to many highly-esteemed philosophers and scientists.  Many of them were really horrible persons, treating close ones like shit, and behaving destructively.  Yet, what they discovered, has merit.

Thus: a logical and rational person must not classify a statement based on who utters it, or the utterer's personal characteristics.  Each statement must be evaluated on its own merits.

If we refuse to divorce the statement from the person of the utterer, we reject everything that made Western societies reject slavery and move towards equal rights for everyone.  If we ignore history, we are doomed to repeat the same errors.

Even an offensive statement can be true, and an obvious and positive statement false.  Analysing the statement while changing the messenger's ethnicity and religion is a perfectly applicable and required tool, if rational and logical thought is to be applied to the statement; it is the tool we can use to separate our emotions regarding the messenger and the message itself.  Emotions themselves are useful, when examined and their weight on our decisions limited; they can provide cues or connections that the conscious mind has missed.

A society based on emotions only will devolve into eusociality, because it will be ordered based on its emotions and instincts, and not logic and rational thought.  This is why I believe true egalitarian individualism is absolutely necessary for governance in Western societies to avoid a catastrophic societal collapse due to internal unresolvable schisms.  Similar collapses are common in human history whenever population and population density exceeds resources available in a high population density area, through crime and moral and legal collapse, to human sacrifice and cannibalism (Aztecs, Easter Islands).  (In more recent history, e.g. in Africa (Zimbabwe, South Africa), it has lead to famine, widespread violence, and humanitarian crises.)

I find it important how game-theoretical analysis of interactions between humans recommends the same choices as egalitarian individualism does, if the game is to maximize fair mutually beneficial interactions between individuals.  (And if applied to e.g. a pet or service dog, horse, or elephant, you acquire someone who wants to work with you, not against you.  Fairness and unchanging rules are the key here.)

Egalitarian individualism is absolutely opposite to current multicultural intersectionalism, which is the stated view/target of e.g. the current Finnish government.

[daqq]

I'll keep reading the comic - it's funny enough.

As to the debate, anyone saying that heavily biased double standards on what is okay to say do not exist, well, good for you. Just try to do a thought experiment, take statements that have been claimed as racist, caused an "outrage" (also known as a >2% increase in incoherent screeching on twitter) and peoples careers ended for it, flip the ethnicities and think if the result would have been the same.

One could argue The Simpsons has outstayed its welcome*.

It's a zombie show that missed its chance to die gracefully a decade or two ago.

[langwadt]

“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”

Yikes, that's actually the law? That's rather terrifying, there are very few people that couldn't be charged with that in some capacity. A law against something like openly inciting violence or repeatedly harassing someone is reasonable, but causing them annoyance?? This sort of thing makes me all the more thankful to live somewhere where we at least ostensibly have a constitutionally protected right to free speech.

It's a terrible law, because it's so easy to misinterpret.  The basis for the law was one to prevent cyber-bullying and internet harrassment, and it was warned at the time that it was a dangerous precedent to set, but it still happened, because you've "got to protect those innocent children".  See also:  Internet safety bill in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GTn1He86oJk

[james_s]

It's a zombie show that missed its chance to die gracefully a decade or two ago.

Matt Groening has publicly said at one point that they're just going to ride the gravy train until it runs out of steam. Who can blame them? If the show is still making money they'll keep producing it. Animation has the huge advantage that the characters never age, the worst that can happen is the voice actor dies, retires, throws a tantrum and storms off, or gets fired for saying something that incurs the wrath of the outrage mob. 

[tom66]

It's a zombie show that missed its chance to die gracefully a decade or two ago.

Matt Groening has publicly said at one point that they're just going to ride the gravy train until it runs out of steam. Who can blame them? If the show is still making money they'll keep producing it. Animation has the huge advantage that the characters never age, the worst that can happen is the voice actor dies, retires, throws a tantrum and storms off, or gets fired for saying something that incurs the wrath of the outrage mob.

Even that won't kill the show.  They can just replace voice actors and it's possible to manipulate voices now so well that you may never notice that a voice actor has changed. (There are some interesting legal headaches that will come about from this, I'm sure, but the bottom line is a recognisable voice may not be enough to make you money soon enough.)

[HuronKing]

It's a zombie show that missed its chance to die gracefully a decade or two ago.

Matt Groening has publicly said at one point that they're just going to ride the gravy train until it runs out of steam. Who can blame them? If the show is still making money they'll keep producing it. Animation has the huge advantage that the characters never age, the worst that can happen is the voice actor dies, retires, throws a tantrum and storms off, or gets fired for saying something that incurs the wrath of the outrage mob.

Even that won't kill the show.  They can just replace voice actors and it's possible to manipulate voices now so well that you may never notice that a voice actor has changed. (There are some interesting legal headaches that will come about from this, I'm sure, but the bottom line is a recognisable voice may not be enough to make you money soon enough.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the show someday becomes entirely AI generated.

"Write an episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets drafted into the Wagner Group. Include plenty of references to Zelensky and make Putin look very tough."

[james_s]

Even that won't kill the show.  They can just replace voice actors and it's possible to manipulate voices now so well that you may never notice that a voice actor has changed. (There are some interesting legal headaches that will come about from this, I'm sure, but the bottom line is a recognisable voice may not be enough to make you money soon enough.)

That's kind of my point, even the worst case scenario won't kill the show, as long as it is still profitable they can continue to produce it. With live action the characters age and eventually die, it's often not feasible to replace one of them.

[MK14]

I wouldn't be surprised if the show someday becomes entirely AI generated.

"Write an episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets drafted into the Wagner Group. Include plenty of references to Zelensky and make Putin look very tough."

Ok, Done...

FADE IN:

EXT. SIMPSONS HOUSE - DAY

Homer is sitting on the couch, flipping through TV channels when a knock is heard on the door.

HOMER: (yelling) Marge, can you get that? I’m in the middle of watching TV!

MARGE: (off-screen) Homer, it’s for you!

HOMER: (groans and gets up from the couch) Who could it be?

Homer opens the door to find a group of heavily armed men wearing black tactical gear standing outside.

LEADER: Mr. Simpson, you have been drafted into the Wagner Group.

HOMER: (confused) The Wagner Group? What’s that?

LEADER: We are a private military contractor working for the Russian government. We need your skills for a special mission.

HOMER: (intrigued) Special mission? Tell me more.

The scene cuts to Homer arriving in Russia and meeting with President Vladimir Putin.

PUTIN: Mr. Simpson, we need you to infiltrate the Ukrainian government and plant a listening device in President Zelensky’s office.

HOMER: (proudly) Don’t worry, Putin. I’m your man.

The scene cuts to Homer disguised as a Ukrainian politician sneaking into President Zelensky’s office.

HOMER: (whispering to himself) This is just like the time I snuck into the plant and stole all those donuts.

Homer plants the device, but things quickly go wrong when he accidentally triggers the alarm.

ALARM: (blaring) Intruder alert! Intruder alert!

HOMER: (panicking) Uh-oh. I gotta get outta here.

Homer runs out of the building with guards chasing after him. He eventually escapes and meets up with Putin.

PUTIN: (disappointed) You failed, Mr. Simpson. Zelensky is now aware of our plans.

HOMER: (ashamed) I’m sorry, Putin. I let you down.

PUTIN: (sternly) You have disgraced the Wagner Group. But I am a fair man. I will give you one more chance.

HOMER: (determined) I won’t let you down this time, Putin.

The scene cuts to Homer disguised as a Ukrainian soldier infiltrating the Ukrainian army base.

HOMER: (thinking to himself) Just like in that video game Bart plays.

Homer plants the device and escapes undetected. He meets up with Putin, who is impressed this time.

PUTIN: (smiling) Well done, Mr. Simpson. You have proved yourself to the Wagner Group.

HOMER: (proudly) Thank you, Putin. I’m glad I could help.

The scene cuts to Homer back at home, sitting on the couch with a beer in his hand.

HOMER: (thinking to himself) I may have saved the world, but I’m still just a regular guy.

MARGE: (off-screen) Homer, dinner’s ready!

HOMER: (smiling) Coming, Marge!

FADE OUT.


FADE IN:

The next day, Homer is sitting at Moe's Tavern, recounting his adventures to his friends.

HOMER: And then Putin said, "Well done, Mr. Simpson. You have proved yourself to the Wagner Group."

Lenny and Carl look impressed, but Barney seems skeptical.

BARNEY: I don't know, Homer. Working for the Russians sounds kind of sketchy.

HOMER: (defensive) Hey, I was just following orders. And besides, Putin is a tough guy. You don't want to mess with him.

MOE: (eavesdropping) Putin, huh? I heard he once wrestled a bear with his bare hands.

HOMER: (nodding) Yeah, that sounds like him.

Just then, the TV in the corner of the bar switches to a news report about Putin.

ANCHOR: And in other news, Russian President Vladimir Putin has once again made headlines for his tough stance on foreign policy.

Homer and his friends turn their attention to the TV.

ANCHOR: Earlier today, Putin issued a warning to President Zelensky of Ukraine, urging him to comply with Russian demands or face dire consequences.

HOMER: (nervously) Oh no, what have I gotten myself into?

Lenny and Carl try to reassure Homer.

LENNY: Don't worry, Homer. You did what you had to do.

CARL: Yeah, and you're not the only one who's worked for shady employers.

Moe chimes in.

MOE: Yeah, remember that time I was a hitman for the mob?

Homer and his friends share a laugh.

HOMER: (smiling) Thanks, guys. I feel better now.

Just then, the TV switches to a commercial for Duff beer, and the conversation turns back to normal.

FADE OUT.

[HuronKing]

I wouldn't be surprised if the show someday becomes entirely AI generated.

"Write an episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets drafted into the Wagner Group. Include plenty of references to Zelensky and make Putin look very tough."

Ok, Done...

Yea that's more or less modern Simpsons. 

[aeberbach]

The only less funny cartoon is Garfield.

Scott Adams feels a lack of attention so says something stupid to bring the focus back. Robert Metcalfe used to do the same thing - the internet was going to implode! The "open sores" projects would never produce anything good! Saying stupid and wrong things has always been an effective way to draw attention and makes you money.

[james_s]

Clearly humor is subjective, I think Garfield is funny too, but Dilbert has long been one of my favorite comics, I generally enjoy xkcd slightly more.

[tom66]

Yea that's more or less modern Simpsons. 

It's in the top half of anything post season 18 or so.

[newbrain]

Clearly humor is subjective, I think Garfield is funny too, but Dilbert has long been one of my favorite comics, I generally enjoy xkcd slightly more.

I stopped buying comics ages ago, but still read some webcomics.
Among my favourites, XKCD is still one of the most "funny", then I like SMBC a lot, but I admit I have a soft spot for Red Meat (might be slightly NSFW) and Oglaf (definitely NSFW)!

Does Garfield still exist? My kids used to like it 15 years ago.

The last comics I bought were from Disney Italia, a couple of series I think were not much distributed outside of Italy: PKNE and MMMM - our usual characters in a quite different light - a thing Italian writers and artists have always been very keen on.
After all, it was in the Italian "Topolino" magazine that he got (briefly) married - and not with Minnie Mouse!

[Sal Ammoniac]

Racism against whites and Asians is far more of a problem in the US, than any other kind of racism.

Is that how people in the UK view racism in the US? That racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks, for instance? Most blacks over here wouldn't agree with that view, at all. There's a very strong sense of white privilege here which whites often use to justify their racism towards blacks. Racism against blacks is so widespread and persistent that there's even a whole vocabulary grown up around it, like "DWB" (driving while black).

[james_s]

Is that how people in the UK view racism in the US? That racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks, for instance? Most blacks over here wouldn't agree with that view, at all. There's a very strong sense of white privilege here which whites often use to justify their racism towards blacks. Racism against blacks is so widespread and persistent that there's even a whole vocabulary grown up around it, like "DWB" (driving while black).

It depends on who you talk to I guess. The most openly and unashamedly racist people I have ever encountered have been black. That is obviously not to say that all blacks are racist, not even close, but in some circles "racism" has been redefined so that only whites can be racist, I know, it makes no sense, but I have actually had people tell me on more than one occasion that "he can't be racist, he's black"  Meanwhile people of certain races get away with saying abhorrent things that would get someone of another race crucified and yet it is seen as acceptable.

[HuronKing]

The only less funny cartoon is Garfield.

Garfield Minus Garfield is hysterical whether you like classic Garfield or not. Even the creator of Garfield found it funny:
https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/

[james_s]

Garfield Minus Garfield is hysterical whether you like classic Garfield or not. Even the creator of Garfield found it funny:
https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/

I have to admit it is funnier than the original.

[Sal Ammoniac]

The most openly and unashamedly racist people I have ever encountered have been black.

I wonder if that's because blacks are inherently racist, or because they've been discriminated against for so long that their racism is a backlash against what they themselves have been subjected to? The latter, I expect.

[james_s]

I wonder if that's because blacks are inherently racist, or because they've been discriminated against for so long that their racism is a backlash against what they themselves have been subjected to? The latter, I expect.

I think neither. Far more likely is there are no consequences, they're allowed to be racist, they can say absolutely anything they want and it is deemed acceptable, because in the mind of many their racism is not racism at all. As I said, I have had people tell me that black people literally cannot be racist. That statement boggles the mind since it is objectively false, but if you can freely redefine words as needed, any statement can be made true.

At any rate, as long as racism is seen as acceptable, from anybody, directed toward anybody, it will never go away. You cannot fight racism by being racist and there is no such thing as "reverse racism", it's just plain old fashioned racism, period.

[Sal Ammoniac]

At any rate, as long as racism is seen as acceptable, from anybody, directed toward anybody, it will never go away.

This is really the crux of the matter. Racism feeds on racism and we have to break the cycle, somehow.

[Nominal Animal]

XKCD is still one of the most "funny"

Yup; it is the mix of informativeness and absurdness (bizarre/wild/nonsensical) that tickles me.

Oglaf (definitely NSFW)!

Most definitely NSFW!  There, too, it's the absurdity I really like.

My favourite Finnish comic author is definitely Jukka Tilsa.  That there is absurdist if anything is.

In Dilbert, it was the apt examples of workplace inanities and executives detached from reality that I liked.

I also really like Gary Larson's Far Side.

The one site I like to visit every day is however icanhas.cheezburger.com, simply because it is one site that is guaranteed to bring at least a fleeting smile on my face.  It has many subcategories. It's a good way to start any day.  I definitely recommend against reading any kind of news the first thing in the morning; it is better and healthier to start with a smile instead.

[james_s]

This is really the crux of the matter. Racism feeds on racism and we have to break the cycle, somehow.

Like not being racist? Like acknowledging that racism is racism regardless of the races involved and not accepting it from anyone? The way to break the cycle is to stop being racist, and to call out racism whenever it occurs, and whoever is doing it. Not to be racist against someone else or redefining the word "racism" to mean something else. Breaking the cycle requires doing pretty much exactly NOT what people are doing lately.

[Zero999]

Racism against whites and Asians is far more of a problem in the US, than any other kind of racism.

Is that how people in the UK view racism in the US? That racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks, for instance? Most blacks over here wouldn't agree with that view, at all. There's a very strong sense of white privilege here which whites often use to justify their racism towards blacks. Racism against blacks is so widespread and persistent that there's even a whole vocabulary grown up around it, like "DWB" (driving while black).

Yes. That's exactly how it looks to me, going from what I see in the US media. Almost no racism directed towards blacks, loads towards whites and a significant amount against Asians. Harvard is even being sued for discriminating against Asians.

There appears to be a strong sense of black privilege. Scott Adams has been cancelled for saying the same kind of things blacks routinely say about whites, without facing any consequences. Where's his white privilege?

I admit I haven't been to the USA. I'm purely observing how things appear to be from what I see from US media. The fact so many go on about blacks being oppressed and white privilege makes it even more bizarre. It reminds me of the "I'm I the only gay in the village" sketch from Little Britain. It's about an overtly gay bloke who whines about being discriminated against, even though it's blatantly obvious almost everyone else where he lives is openly gay.

I'm aware that the mainstream media are guilty of a lot of selective reporting. A white police officer killing a black person makes national headlines, yet a group of blacks beating up a Chinese or white person is far more common and almost never makes the news and when it does.

[Nominal Animal]

If you permit me a slight diversion:

According to DOI: 10.1097/01.chi0000205699.58626.b5, "living in nonintact family at age 8 predicted all types of criminal offenses.", concluding with "Living in a broken home, low parental education level, conduct problems, and hyperactivity in middle childhood predict criminal offenses in late adolescence. Efforts to prevent later criminality already in childhood are emphasized."

The same has been observed all over the world at least for the last century, studying the outcomes for thousands of children from all different ethnicities.  The above is from 1981-2001 in Finland, but basically all studies on "criminality predictors" I can find, say the same.  (Feel free to do your own search and review at e.g. US NIH, for example.)

Yet, what would happen if someone were to comment that perhaps the reason black men in America are overrepresented in criminal statistics does not stem so much systemic racism, but from the prevalence of non-intact black families (70%+ single mothers)?

It does not matter that the argument would be the same for any other ethnic group having the same statistical disparity, and does not disparage blacks at all.
Simply because the argument does not find an external oppressor as the cause, the argument itself is deemed racist, per intersectional theory of racism.

The studies say that all humans are the same in this regard, although one should expand the concept of "intact family" to one with supportive role models of both sexes to cover for all known/traditionally functional family models, especially multi-generational ones.  So, the above does not "devalue" blacks, because it has nothing specific to blacks; it just describes a likely model of what is happening to blacks in USA right now.  In fact, it even tells us how we can help fix the situation: by teaching men and women to value intact family models, to try and provide an intact family to children, and especially for men, including black men, to be fathers and present and proper row models for their young children to help them avoid a future leading to a criminal record in young adulthood.

(That itself will be seriously opposed by neo-feminists, who believe the best possible family is a single mother free from all patriarchal influences.)

If the above research sounds logical to you, then what people like Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell are saying about traditional family structures should make sense also.  And while people like Scott Adams will never sound less stupid, at least you can understand why they are so frustrated and say the things they say, even if you don't agree with them.