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

[langwadt]

That's what I never understand about all this "cancel culture" mongering...  Yes, you have the right to say basically whatever you want.  But if your livelihood or whatnot depends on public acceptance, saying things that are likely to loose your audience is all on you.

I don't have a problem with people losing their audience after saying something distasteful. What I have a problem with is the mob mentality and rabid efforts to completely destroy someone. If you don't like somebody then don't go to their event, that's perfectly fine, but bullying the venue, org, etc into cancelling the event and booting them out is something I have a problem with. Ultimately the issue it boils down to is bullying, and I see the "cancel mob" or whatever you want to call it as a group of bullies. Having been the victim of bullying as a kid, like most other nerds and geeks, it is something I do not tolerate.

and people staying silent and/or saying things they don't really believe for fear of being cancelled or ostracized is a really dangerous slippery slope

[james_s]

Corporations are people and money is speech. If advertisers don't want their brands near distasteful speech, then out the speaker goes.

Sure, there are protestors at venues and whatever. But it's not some random mob that gets a nationally syndicated cartoonist pulled from major newspapers overnight - even before most of the mob knows what he said.

It's far more than that, I was not even speaking of the Dilbert guy in this case. There have been numerous people un-invited from university speaking events due to the outrage mob throwing a tantrum. That has nothing to do with brands and it is especially ironic since one of the main purposes of a university education is to be exposed to a variety of views and concepts.

[IanB]

I had a few people get really upset with me when I said I thought Trump was likely to win. I didn't even vote for him, I certainly wouldn't call myself a supporter, I simply pointed out that his message was resonating with people and I thought he would win. The anger such a prediction can create is something that even today I don't really understand.

I honestly don't know if Trump "won" or Clinton "lost". I certainly had a cynical impression that the Democratic party threw the election at that time by acting in a complacent and entitled manner and did not make appropriate efforts to win the presidency. People calling a Trump win should have been a wake-up call for the DNC.

[IanB]

That has nothing to do with brands and it is especially ironic since one of the main purposes of a university education is to be exposed to a variety of views and concepts.

Only the right views and concepts 

[HuronKing]

Corporations are people and money is speech. If advertisers don't want their brands near distasteful speech, then out the speaker goes.

Sure, there are protestors at venues and whatever. But it's not some random mob that gets a nationally syndicated cartoonist pulled from major newspapers overnight - even before most of the mob knows what he said.

It's far more than that, I was not even speaking of the Dilbert guy in this case. There have been numerous people un-invited from university speaking events due to the outrage mob throwing a tantrum. That has nothing to do with brands and it is especially ironic since one of the main purposes of a university education is to be exposed to a variety of views and concepts.

Universities are corporations. They are profit making enterprises and many of them depend on sponsorships from other corporations.

If its bad for the brand to have a controversial speaker, out they go.

Again, this is a problem that's been festering (in the USA) since the 1980s and the restructuring of how student loans work, the rising cost of tuition, and how universities make money.

PS
And of course there is the ol' joke that if the budget of the university football team is more than the rest of the school... then really its an athletics club that teaches classes as a side hustle.

[Zero999]

Corporations are people and money is speech. If advertisers don't want their brands near distasteful speech, then out the speaker goes.

Sure, there are protestors at venues and whatever. But it's not some random mob that gets a nationally syndicated cartoonist pulled from major newspapers overnight - even before most of the mob knows what he said.

It's far more than that, I was not even speaking of the Dilbert guy in this case. There have been numerous people un-invited from university speaking events due to the outrage mob throwing a tantrum. That has nothing to do with brands and it is especially ironic since one of the main purposes of a university education is to be exposed to a variety of views and concepts.

Universities are corporations. They are profit making enterprises and many of them depend on sponsorships from other corporations.

If its bad for the brand to have a controversial speaker, out they go.

Again, this is a problem that's been festering (in the USA) since the 1980s and the restructuring of how student loans work, the rising cost of tuition, and how universities make money.

PS
And of course there is the ol' joke that if the budget of the university football team is more than the rest of the school... then really its an athletics club that teaches classes as a side hustle.

Companies and universities have a skewed perception of what the general population believes to be acceptable. They live in their own bubbles of BLM and alphabet Pride parades. If publishers and advertises simply waited to see whether Scott's comments led to a mass boycott, which reduced sales and website views, they'd probably find it wouldn't happen, but they feared the mob and wimped out. Many predicted Hogwarts Legacy would be subject to a such a mass boycott, due to JK Rowling's supposedly transphobic comments, yet it didn't happen and so far the game has been a huge hit.

[james_s]

Universities are corporations. They are profit making enterprises and many of them depend on sponsorships from other corporations.

If its bad for the brand to have a controversial speaker, out they go.

Again, this is a problem that's been festering (in the USA) since the 1980s and the restructuring of how student loans work, the rising cost of tuition, and how universities make money.

I think this is largely nonsense. It's not like it is some large portion of the population that has a problem with it, it's a very small, very loud mob that has a hugely outsized influence. Almost anyone can be controversial in some sense, controversy is good, especially in an academic environment. Universities should absolutely be pushing boundaries and discussing topics and ideas that push people out of their comfort zones, all people, not just one specific side. It is very lopsided too, from what I have seen it is only people with some kind of perceived conservative lean that get "cancelled", other people say far more controversial or vile things with no consequence at all, there is a massive glaring double standard, I see it and I wouldn't even call myself a conservative, really I'm left of center by American standards.

[HuronKing]

Universities are corporations. They are profit making enterprises and many of them depend on sponsorships from other corporations.

If its bad for the brand to have a controversial speaker, out they go.

Again, this is a problem that's been festering (in the USA) since the 1980s and the restructuring of how student loans work, the rising cost of tuition, and how universities make money.

I think this is largely nonsense. It's not like it is some large portion of the population that has a problem with it, it's a very small, very loud mob that has a hugely outsized influence.

This loud but small mob aren't the people standing outside the venue with signs. They're the donors and corporate sponsors who bestow millions of dollars based on THEIR interests and objectives:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187765/

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeshighereducation.com%2Fdepth%2Fare-corporate-interests-taking-over-us-higher-education

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071558/

https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=hpt

https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/how-corporations-use

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-corporations-turned-into-political-beasts-2015-4

I could go on and on.

Yes, there is a small but loud mob that has outsized influence on the country. It isn't some gaggle of blue-haired 20 year olds standing outside a convention center with a sign and a Twitter account. That's ridiculous. It's corporate personhood.

[Nominal Animal]

I find some of his strips funny. But they always evoke the picture of that self-righteous bigot, which spoils the fun for me.

I do hope you dislike* me for what I say, and not for who or what you think I am, or what picture I evoke.

* or lack respect for, or whatever qualification you think is more apt.

people staying silent and/or saying things they don't really believe for fear of being cancelled or ostracized is a really dangerous slippery slope

And it is a major way of how good intentions lead to bad outcomes.

Is there a difference in being ostracized deliberately by bullies, and in being ostracized because nobody dares interact with you in public in fear of mob retaliation?  I don't think so.

It is different when one is ostracized because of what they say.  But, as others have said above, Scott Adams did not get canceled because he would not have had any readers, he got canceled because advertisers fear the actions of small, vocal, very visible activist groups.  Those used to be despised as the political agitator scum they are –– regardless of their political leanings, as they use fear as their weapon! ––, now they're elevated to important celebrity status that even government leaders listen to with pomp and fanfare if it suits their agenda. 

[james_s]

Yes, there is a small but loud mob that has outsized influence on the country. It isn't some gaggle of blue-haired 20 year olds standing outside a convention center with a sign and a Twitter account. That's ridiculous. It's corporate personhood.

Corporate personhood is a ridiculous concept that ought to be abolished, but I think you are underestimating the size and power of the mob on social media.

[HuronKing]

Yes, there is a small but loud mob that has outsized influence on the country. It isn't some gaggle of blue-haired 20 year olds standing outside a convention center with a sign and a Twitter account. That's ridiculous. It's corporate personhood.

Corporate personhood is a ridiculous concept that ought to be abolished, but I think you are underestimating the size and power of the mob on social media.

The mob is shown what the algorithms determine they should be shown. Humans aren't even involved in that anymore.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/16/algorithms-in-action-the-content-people-see-on-social-media/

Nearly all the content people see on social media is chosen not by human editors but rather by computer programs using massive quantities of data about each user to deliver content that he or she might find relevant or engaging.

https://www.theceomagazine.com/opinion/social-media-algorithms/

https://funginstitute.berkeley.edu/news/op-ed-social-media-algorithms-their-effects-on-american-politics/

Algorithms create filter bubbles and silos shaped by corporate data collectors; they limit people’s exposure to a wider range of ideas and reliable information and eliminate serendipity.

Based on data collected about you, if you want to see racism everywhere, you will. If you don't believe its everywhere, you won't see it. And both sides will be utterly flabbergasted at the lack of exposure the other side has to opposing viewpoints.

This is all exceptionally well-documented and its all driven by the fiction of corporations as people and the influence their money has to create these algorithms to drive engagement, outrage, and conflict.

The trick is not that the algorithms are actually CHANGING anyone's opinions or trying to manipulate you into believing something other than what you already believe. Quite the opposite - they are feeding exactly the opinion everyone wants to hear, tailored to their specific likes, dislikes, biases, and prejudices.

PS
Another example of this twisted fiction of corporate personhood manipulating opinions of the People is how Wendy's managed to successfully market their brand as a plucky fork-tongued tweeting machine. But the reality is they are a multi-billion dollar fast-food chain with 1000s of restaurants... Wendy's is not a person!
https://www.rivaliq.com/blog/wendys-social-media-strategy/

What's even more insane is when these brands, owned by the same conglomerate, get into "Twitter wars" with each other while the mob cheers on their favorite logo... THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE! AHHHH! 

[Circlotron]

––, now they're elevated to important celebrity status that even government leaders listen to with pomp and fanfare if it suits their agenda. 

“How dare you!”

[ebastler]

I find some of his strips funny. But they always evoke the picture of that self-righteous bigot, which spoils the fun for me.

I do hope you dislike* me for what I say, and not for who or what you think I am, or what picture I evoke.

That would depend very much on what you say (or write), wouldn't it? If you wrote a daily blog for a year, where you essentially kept repeating "xxx is so great, and I would know, since I am so great", I would probably dislike you.

As described in the first part of my earlier post (which you conveniently omitted), that is how I came to dislike Scott Adams. Very much based on what he said/wrote, as you seem to prefer.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Thanks!

He has got amazingly good insight, into the workings (psychology), of engineers, and their work environment.  But given they (Scott) have worked with real engineers, for long periods of time, that gives him, plenty of experience.

E.g. A boss, with somewhat crazy, unachievable goals, requirements and ideas.

Has he worked with real engineers in the last few decades?  The field has moved on so very much since the office cubicles of the 80's and 90's - don't get me wrong, some companies do work that way but a lot don't any more.

Not as far as I know. He left Pacbell a few months after I started working there, so I remember seeing him occasionally in the halls (we worked on the same floor and in the same wing of the building.

I've heard that he's worth something like $65M, so even if he never works again he's set for life.

[aeberbach]

1) he still has his artist (he hasn't drawn it for a few years now AFAIK) employed, so Dilbert will still be produced and available via his Locals platform. (AFAIK he's an investor of some sort in Locals)

And just when I thought I couldn't respect him less - you're saying he just signs the strips now drawn by someone else? Same as Jim Davis with Garfield?

[tszaboo]

I've just watched his pinned video on his twitter, he explains why he did it. For the goals that he had in mind, he kinda succeded.
It's an interesting conversation, though some of the topics seem really outlandish for me, but that's probably because I grew up on the other side of the globe.

The mob, the radical left is about 15% of the US population.

The hardcore conservative right is probably a similar percentage.  I think social media and biased 'journalism' have provided the fringe population more power and influence than they should realistically have.  The larger 'centrist'  population is being manipulated rather than pushing back on the extremists from both sides.

Conservative is actually 30% as I understand. But that's not what is on the opposite side for the radical left. The ultranationalists are really fringe in numbers, almost insignificant. I like to think of the political views as a circle, where the radical left and right are right next to each other. Bigger issue is that people seem to not even have a basic understanding of political views.
I've just listened to an interview with Konstantin Kisin the other day, saying that conservatism doesn't seem to be "sexy" and doesn't seem to offer any group belonging to young people the same way these extreme views do. And saying" Hey listen, the lights are on, and while it's not perfect, but its much better to live here than in any other political system" is not having an effect.
Oh, and why is this important for me? Because the culture war seems to be at it's maximum and (as much as I hate to admit) it needs to be win in the US and Hollywood and Big tech. Because they got full control over the majority of opinions.

[EEVblog]

Remaining apolitical would have been far better for his career.   

That's what I never understand about all this "cancel culture" mongering...  Yes, you have the right to say basically whatever you want.  But if your livelihood or whatnot depends on public acceptance, saying things that are likely to loose your audience is all on you.

That's been how the world has worked for the last decade now. People are too afraid to say anything for fear of the mob. It used to be anything anti-woke, but then it was anything covid related have been the two main things you don't dare speak against or you'll get "cancelled".
If I had a day job I guarantee you I would have been fired from every single job because the cancel culture mob have come after me.
In fact it's worse than that, they have gone after my friends and colleagues and tried to have them cancelled, mearly because they are associated with me. And publicly disavowing somethign I said is not enough to appease the mob, you have to sever all ties both social and business. And even then that's not enough, because if even if you do all that if you don't continue to adhear to the purity test then you'll get cancelled too. It's a purity spiral all the way down.

In Adam's case he didn't say anything that "lost him his audience". In fact he has gained audience on Youtube, Locals, and twitter, by a lot actually. The financial "cancelling" was done by his political adversaries.
He talked about that on last nights live show.

[EEVblog]

1) he still has his artist (he hasn't drawn it for a few years now AFAIK) employed, so Dilbert will still be produced and available via his Locals platform. (AFAIK he's an investor of some sort in Locals)

And just when I thought I couldn't respect him less - you're saying he just signs the strips now drawn by someone else? Same as Jim Davis with Garfield?

As I undertand it, the actual strip is drawn by someone else in the last year or so now I think. But he still comes up with all the ideas and captions and maybe even lays out a rough sketch of the compositions and then leaves the final detail work to someone else. See the video I posted before of him drawing the stip, it's a multi step process.

[EEVblog]

I had a few people get really upset with me when I said I thought Trump was likely to win. I didn't even vote for him, I certainly wouldn't call myself a supporter, I simply pointed out that his message was resonating with people and I thought he would win. The anger such a prediction can create is something that even today I don't really understand.

Trump Derangement Syndrone is real.
I once posted a photo of a red cap with the message Make Electronics Great Again as a joke. And that was subsequently used (and continues to be used) by "the mob" in an attempt to cancel me and anyone associated with me as I mentioned previously. It's a very real thing. Doesn't matter that I had posted anti-tump stuff and even made fun of him in videos on my channel, you are either 100% with the mob or you risk getting cancelled.
In the last few years it's been my supposed views on covid related issues, they are just as rabbid.

[EEVblog]

You get all your gigs cancelled and black listed because the companies fear of being attacked by "the mob".
In any case, he lost all his speaking gigs for years, and I'm not sure it ever recovered.

The mob, the radical left is about 15% of the US population.

I'd estimate it's never been more than 5%, but they wield a very big social stick and every person, corporation and government department is scared shitless of them.
They also tend to hold jobs in the upper echelons of silicon valley tech companies that rule our lives. Patreon for example that would ban creators for opinion or things they did off their platform.
The Locals platform started specifically because of this happening.

[james_s]

Trump Derangement Syndrone is real.
I once posted a photo of a red cap with the message Make Electronics Great Again as a joke. And that was subsequently used (and continues to be used) by "the mob" in an attempt to cancel me and anyone associated with me as I mentioned previously. It's a very real thing. Doesn't matter that I had posted anti-tump stuff and even made fun of him in videos on my channel, you are either 100% with the mob or you risk getting cancelled.
In the last few years it's been my supposed views on covid related issues, they are just as rabbid.

I think social media, Twitter in particular, creates a positive feedback loop with enormous gain that amplifies this sort of thing. I don't know how to correct it, but from what I have observed the absolute worst thing a person can do is apologize. It is an admission of guilt and they will pile on you like cheetahs pouncing on a wounded prey.

[james_s]

Conservative is actually 30% as I understand. But that's not what is on the opposite side for the radical left. The ultranationalists are really fringe in numbers, almost insignificant. I like to think of the political views as a circle, where the radical left and right are right next to each other. Bigger issue is that people seem to not even have a basic understanding of political views.

The horseshoe theory. I made this same observation quite a few years before I had a name for it. The far left and far right are diametrically opposed and yet nearly indistinguishable from each other in their behavior. A lot like the north and south poles of a magnet I suppose. You'd never know the difference without having an opposing pole to see how it reacts.

[EEVblog]

Woke outrage case just yesterday:
https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1630361968099065857
Electroboom posted about how Canadian schools have apparently dropped geometry from the sylabus and he wasn't happy about it.
I sarcastically replied "Let me guess, they replaced it with a woke subject?" (because it actually has been huge news in Canada for many years now of this happening, that's the joke)
Electroboom then replied with a funny woke type quip.

And you guessed it, the mere mention of the word woke triggered people into outrage, saying how dissapointed they are in us, and trying to "re-educate" us that it's not true etc etc. The usual stuff.

The interesting thing is a few years ago this would have been a massive pile on by the woke mod. They would have trawled my Twitter history and bought up the MAGA hat thing I mentioned and other stuff, and there would have been an attempted twitter cancellation again.
Thankfully such things are considered pretty meh these days and the outrage mob are losing their power big time, at least on Twitter.

[EEVblog]

I think social media, Twitter in particular, creates a positive feedback loop with enormous gain that amplifies this sort of thing. I don't know how to correct it, but from what I have observed the absolute worst thing a person can do is apologize. It is an admission of guilt and they will pile on you like cheetahs pouncing on a wounded prey.

Yes, it's the #1 rule that must be followed at all costs. It's guaranteed to cost you even more if you try and apologise. This includes corporations.

[fourfathom]

a few years ago this would have been a massive pile on by the woke mod.

It's interesting to see how the use of the term "woke" is evolving.  A few years ago when "woke" hit the mainstream, the SJW-types were embracing the term, applying it proudly and self-righteously to whatever they were trying to do.  It was a badge of honor.

Now, whenever someone from the other side uses the "W" word, those same SJWs heap scorn and outrage, claiming that "woke" isn't a real thing, just something that the right-wing MAGA mob made up to be used as a slur.

[Yes, I know not everybody does this, but just over the past few days I've seen this in more than one editorial or commentary.]

And any time I think I'm just over-reacting, I merely have to read this from a few years ago (draft Seattle Schools K-12 Math Ethnic Studies Framework): https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf

Re. Scott Adams, I do think he shot himself in both feet with his "I identify as Black" and "see how much I have helped Blacks" comments.  "Identifying as black" could have been funny, just not when he was defending/explaining himself.  BTW, I still find Dilbert funny, often.  And I do have "The Knack" -- just ask my family and friends.