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

[EEVblog]

All in all, I've found that the posts here are more respectful than you'd find in many other forums.

And this is the 'general chat' group after all...

I think it's mostly down to level headed moderators that have found the near perfect balance between letting conversation flow and the place becoming a total off topic free for all.

I'm trying to keep this under control, because I know that the race aspect of it will get out of hand, guaranteed.
We've already seen it devolve into a a trans debate, religion, and a crap ton of politics.
I'm only keeping the thread open because Dilbert is huge in the engineering community, and also it's a good place to talk about "cancel culture" which impacts us all also.
If we can try to keep it to those two topic it would be appreciated.

[EEVblog]

The thing is, I don't want cooking, so don't subscribe to cooking forums. I like electronics, so I subscribe to electronics forum.
If following the forum becomes too much work, I abandon the forum. I know, most people won't care. But if forum becomes too noisy to be useful, and more people leave or don't stick around, then you get a dead forum.

You can add topics and threads to your ignore list so you won't see them.

[tszaboo]

No disrespect, but if we could take everyone at their word we wouldn't need much of a court system and politicians would be unemployed.  Actions speak louder than words.  And if you look through his history, this is hardly the first time he has skirted with controversy on these issues.  So he knew what the outcome was going to be, and did it anyway.

We only know Adams through what he says and does - nobody other than himself, his family and possibly close friends really know Adams.

How many hours of his talks have you watched?
I'm willing to bet I beat you by 100-1 or even 1000-1
So forgive me if I just ignore your comments.

Is it worth watching his videos? I'm kinda looking for something to listen to in the background.

[Tomorokoshi]

All in all, I've found that the posts here are more respectful than you'd find in many other forums.

And this is the 'general chat' group after all...

I think it's mostly down to level headed moderators that have found the near perfect balance between letting conversation flow and the place becoming a total off topic free for all.

I'm trying to keep this under control, because I know that the race aspect of it will get out of hand, guaranteed.
We've already seen it devolve into a a trans debate, religion, and a crap ton of politics.
I'm only keeping the thread open because Dilbert is huge in the engineering community, and also it's a good place to talk about "cancel culture" which impacts us all also.
If we can try to keep it to those two topic it would be appreciated.

Dave, so you want to discuss "cancel culture", without any aspect of race or politics? Please define "cancel culture".

[EEVblog]

Dave, so you want to discuss "cancel culture", without any aspect of race or politics?

Yes. If you think you can't do that, then don't.

[EEVblog]

Is it worth watching his videos? I'm kinda looking for something to listen to in the background.

If you are after life advice with analysis of daily news filtered through the lens of a hypnotist persuasion expert, then yes, worth it. Or if you just like sarcasm and trolling, also worth it.
The latest ones have of course been majority about the incident, so listen to older ones if you want to avoid that.
He does whiteboard stuff occasionally, but easily audio podcastable in the background.

[wilfred]

If half the population support Adams then presumably the other half don't. Then a population sized mob would be evenly matched. What pressure would the mob apply to the platforms? Even if the mob applying pressure was a subset of the population it would have to be an unrepresentative subset of the population to move the needle towards cancellation.
I think the pressure is more likely to come from advertisers and they themselves are vulnerable to financial pressure from the mob.

Adams may well be better off ultimately if he creates an audience drawn from those attuned to his message on a platform that is supportive.

Because those of us that support Adam' right to say something controversial are not the mob types, we believe that ganging up and bullying a person is fundamentally wrong. We believe in laws, and applying those laws equally across all citizens. We don't behave like spoiled brat children and throw a tantrum every time we don't get our way. "The mob" is only a very small portion of the population, it is an extremely loud minority that actively engage in bullying, primarily via social media.

Well that is what I was saying. Dave said "Again you don't get what the problem actually is. I'm pretty sure half the population support or at least understand the context of what Adam's said, and do not support his cancellation, yet here we are.
Why? Because those in power at the platforms and publishers bend to the will of the mob,"

How does a small mob carry any influence if half the population support Adams? Which is why I said even if a mob comprising the other half of the population try to cancel him there is and evenly balanced situation for and against.

Hence I came to the conclusion that Dave was incorrect in saying "Why? Because those in power at the platforms and publishers bend to the will of the mob,"
They actually bend to the will of the advertisers with money who in turn bend to the will of the mob ie. their customers.

A small vocal mob does not have the volume to harm Adams as long as he stays true to what he believes is right. This is revealed in the case of the lawsuit by Dominion against Fox News. If there were no revealing admissions from Fox insiders that they knew all along the election was fair but lied for profit anyway they might have toughed it out.

[Nominal Animal]

How does a small mob carry any influence if half the population support Adams?

Because those who support Adams are not willing to fight against the small mob.

Here, the small mob is the small group of young, liberal sociopolitical activists, who have close ties with Finnish media.  For example, the subset of "experts" the Finnish public broadcast company Yle uses, is about 75% the same as the "progressivist activist group" trying to keep everyone towing to the same line in social media and elsewhere.  (About 85% of reporters here self-describe leftist political views.)  Anyone speaking against them, is a transphobic racist Putinist, regardless of the actual topic.

The rest of the people do not see the issues worth starting a fight with the activist group.  They disagree, but will say so only when they know they won't be targeted, because they'd rather not fight with them.

Again, the tactic by the small mob is universal.  It is not to win every battle, but to make fighting against them too risky and expensive –– socially speaking, in this case –– so that they win by default.

Sure, you can just say that "that's their choice; if they wanted to really support, they'd speak against the mob".  The issue with that is in psychology.  The Overton window is moving exactly because the sides are not equally willing to use the same tactics to force their views on others.  It is exactly those who are willing to use the nastiest social weaponry (excommunication/labeling/cancellation, historically speaking) and manipulation, that are making headway in moving the Overton window the way they want; and that indeed seems to vary both geographically and in time.  Fifty years ago, it was the status quo conservatives here, now it is the far left globalist liberals.  I'm trying to denounce the entire tactic, because it never makes things better.

[james_s]

Yes, that. The mob is almost entirely on social media, social media is very heavily biased toward young and left to far left leaning people, that's just who is statistically using it. I disagree strongly with this mob, but I have no interest in forming my own mob of online bullies and I have no interest in tangling myself up in that drama. This is exactly why there is not an evenly split mob. It is one certain type of person that is attracted to that behavior, young, arrogant, SJW types, the bullying is a part of their culture, not mine. I don't even use social media unless you count this forum.

[tszaboo]

I figured out what's wrong with the download script I've been using. Every Sunday comic is jpeg instead of gif after 2000, so that's why it wasn't downloading it well. I had to fix it a few places, but it seems to work now. When I have some time I'll make it available on github.

https://gist.github.com/tszaboo/fb9aaff88f802c3a1de961faddc60fbc
Forked from BaloneyGeek. It seems to work ok now, but the script is not near perfect. Hacked exceptions and stuff like that. If someone has more patience for programming pls fix.

I had to run the script a few times, but it was able to download all the comics in the end, so I'm calling it good enough.

[JohanH]

Here, the small mob is the small group of young, liberal sociopolitical activists, who have close ties with Finnish media.  For example, the subset of "experts" the Finnish public broadcast company Yle uses, is about 75% the same as the "progressivist activist group" trying to keep everyone towing to the same line in social media and elsewhere.  (About 85% of reporters here self-describe leftist political views.)  Anyone speaking against them, is a transphobic racist Putinist, regardless of the actual topic.

I would not like to step into this tar pit, but I must live in some kind of bubble where I don't see this. Of course, I live in a Swedish speaking area where many people, if we must define political scale, are more kind of progressive social liberal, maybe mostly centerists. But there are definitely people in politics spanning from left to right on the scale here. About this "small mob", I haven't seen this picture that you paint of it in media. Or my experience is that most people surrounding me are progressive and liberal, so I don't see this type of message as "mobbish". Locally here, there is a marginal group of conservative, mostly religious people spreading conspiracy theories about vaccines, 5G killing people, NATO is bad, Trump will save our souls etc. that also behave like Putin supporters. The last thing is so definitely condemned by the majority in this country and the group is so small that I don't see this as a big issue. This whole thing that "cancelling" and "wokism" would be a thing in our country are so strange and new concepts to me, that I'm sometimes flabbergasted. Must be living under a rock...

[EEVblog]

How does a small mob carry any influence if half the population support Adams?

Become any sort of public figure, publish where you work, and then go speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists, like J.K Rowling has done, and watch you lose your job quick smart. It works because people are fearful the mob will come for them if they try and defend you, so almost everyone just stays silent.

A small vocal mob does not have the volume to harm Adams as long as he stays true to what he believes is right.

They did, his syndication company dropped him under the pressure. Not even Adams blames them for doing that.

[madires]

How does a small mob carry any influence if half the population support Adams? Which is why I said even if a mob comprising the other half of the population try to cancel him there is and evenly balanced situation for and against.

Cowards are easy to bully. It just takes a few people amplified by social media and the cowards comply, ignoring their own conscience and sometimes even committing offences. A coward publisher is more concerned about possibly losing some money than defending free speech.

[JohanH]

Become any sort of public figure, publish where you work, and then go speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists, like J.K Rowling has done, and watch you lose your job quick smart.

Why in the world would you have to "speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists" unless you specifically work in this area or have been harassed or something? It quickly turns into blaming an "other" group in society and here we are again. Where the minority could be gender/ethnicity/religion whatever in society. Which is easily felt as discriminatory or racist behavior. It wasn't such a problem in the past because many of these minority groups were in hiding due to fear of society. Today many of them are publicly demanding their right to exist and equality. Which I think is natural and is their right as humans. Of course there will be some people in the minority groups that will over-reach and do stupid things. You still can't blame a whole group. But its a fact that some people are afraid and feel threatened by minorities and actively tries to prevent them from gaining equal status in society. I have no idea if Rowling or Adams deserved their "treatment" or not, but if they speak stupid things, it's on them to bear the consequences. Humans are still not adapted to the fast flow of information on the Internet and social media so there will of course be some that will be hanged out publicly without deserving it. It sucks, but what can you do. Maybe in the future people will behave better (the ancient Greeks might have an opinion).

[Zero999]

Become any sort of public figure, publish where you work, and then go speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists, like J.K Rowling has done, and watch you lose your job quick smart.

Why in the world would you have to "speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists" unless you specifically work in this area or have been harassed or something?

Because they have some crazy ideas which would be dangerous for society if implemented, such as allowing males in women's prisons, to compete against women in sports and experimental, irreversible medical treatment on children. Anyone who cares about fairness and women's rights should speak up against their mad ideas. Note this is not about discriminating against trans people, but eradicating gender ideology.

It quickly turns into blaming an "other" group in society and here we are again. Where the minority could be gender/ethnicity/religion whatever in society. Which is easily felt as discriminatory or racist behavior. It wasn't such a problem in the past because many of these minority groups were in hiding due to fear of society. Today many of them are publicly demanding their right to exist and equality. Which I think is natural and is their right as humans. Of course there will be some people in the minority groups that will over-reach and do stupid things. You still can't blame a whole group. But its a fact that some people are afraid and feel threatened by minorities and actively tries to prevent them from gaining equal status in society. I have no idea if Rowling or Adams deserved their "treatment" or not, but if they speak stupid things, it's on them to bear the consequences. Humans are still not adapted to the fast flow of information on the Internet and social media so there will of course be some that will be hanged out publicly without deserving it. It sucks, but what can you do. Maybe in the future people will behave better (the ancient Greeks might have an opinion).

It's those who over-reach and do stupid things who are the problem, rather than minority groups as a whole. They claim to speak for everyone in said minority. People such as JK Rowling have been cancelled for speaking out against trans activists who advocate dangerous policies. For them it's not about equal rights, but special privileges. They stir up resentment in society, resulting in more discrimination against trans people. Around 8 years ago, hardly anyone cared if a man wore a dress and wanted to be treated like a woman. Now people are much more wary because of the craziness mentioned above.

[Kim Christensen]

This whole thing that "cancelling" and "wokism" would be a thing in our country are so strange and new concepts to me, that I'm sometimes flabbergasted. Must be living under a rock...

The problem is social media... I don't mean forums like this one, but ones like Facebook that use algorithms to customize what the user sees.
These algorithms will feed you info that engages you. So if something makes you angry, and you comment on it, the Facebook algorithm will feed you more of the same. Soon you start to believe that the entire world has gone crazy because of what you're seeing on social media. But it's all an illusion.
The problem comes when people start acting out in the real world based upon what they believe is happening in their own personalized "social media reality"...

[james_s]

I would not like to step into this tar pit, but I must live in some kind of bubble where I don't see this. Of course, I live in a Swedish speaking area where many people, if we must define political scale, are more kind of progressive social liberal, maybe mostly centerists. But there are definitely people in politics spanning from left to right on the scale here. About this "small mob", I haven't seen this picture that you paint of it in media. Or my experience is that most people surrounding me are progressive and liberal, so I don't see this type of message as "mobbish". Locally here, there is a marginal group of conservative, mostly religious people spreading conspiracy theories about vaccines, 5G killing people, NATO is bad, Trump will save our souls etc. that also behave like Putin supporters. The last thing is so definitely condemned by the majority in this country and the group is so small that I don't see this as a big issue. This whole thing that "cancelling" and "wokism" would be a thing in our country are so strange and new concepts to me, that I'm sometimes flabbergasted. Must be living under a rock...

Are you active on Twitter? Do you attend or work at a university? Are you a public figure? If none of these then you are considerably less likely to find yourself the target of the cancel mob.

[james_s]

Why in the world would you have to "speak out against a really hot button topic like for example trans activists" unless you specifically work in this area or have been harassed or something?

The definition of "speak out" can be rather loose. In some cases just questioning something they say, making a casual comment or being associated with someone who does. There are people with a hair trigger just looking around for something to be outraged or offended over.

[Zero999]

Going back to the original topic.

There's a range of views about what Scott said and what, if any consequences he should face:

• Scott said something extremely racist and deserves to lose everything.
• What he said was a little bit racist, but he shouldn't have to lose his source of income.
• I don't think he said anything too bad, even though I disagree with most of it. He certainly doesn't deserve any repercussions.
• Scott said nothing wrong. He was right and doesn't deserve to be cancelled.
• He is definitely right and he is the victim of racism. It wouldn't have been as bad for him, had he been black.

Regarding cancel culture in general. The subject is complex and somewhat nuanced. Would you to employ someone who is genuinely racist? If not then, why? If so, then why? My own personal view is, it depends on the job. If the role involves working with others, especially if they're in a position of power, then no. On the other hand, if they're working on their own, then yes, it wouldn't bother me, so long as they don't have a problem with my ethnicity of course. Also note that everyone has their prejudices and biases. I remember not too long ago, those who refused to have a certain injection were subject to discrimination and still are in some jurisdictions. It's questionable whether doctors and nurses, who are extremely pro-prick to the point of believing those who've not had it, should be denied care, should be allowed to treat patients.

[Nominal Animal]

I would not like to step into this tar pit, but I must live in some kind of bubble where I don't see this. Of course, I live in a Swedish speaking area where many people, if we must define political scale, are more kind of progressive social liberal, maybe mostly centerists.

Indeed.  Hbl (the largest Swedish-speaking newspaper in Finland) is one of the less biased newspapers here, and my former Swedish-speaking colleagues at the Uni tended to have very similar views to myself.

You most likely live outside the metropolitan Helsinki-Espoo-Vantaa region, or outside the largest cities; and do not read Helsingin Sanomat, or watch or listen to Finnish-speaking news.  Here in Helsinki, the police doesn't even investigate things like storage burglaries, because their time is taken with more important things, like hate speech on the net.  Perhaps you agree with such priorities, but fact is, it reduces the cohesion and feeling of security in the population.  Perhaps that is exactly why they decided to stop recording and publishing statistics on how secure people actually do feel?

Ordinary working Finns do not see what is happening, because they only get one view from their news, and the majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not fight about politics, until it bites them in the ass.

About this "small mob", I haven't seen this picture that you paint of it in media. Or my experience is that most people surrounding me are progressive and liberal, so I don't see this type of message as "mobbish".

Really?  You don't remember Li Andersson claiming that leftist violence is different?  You forgot the new law that states anyone can change their gender once a year simply by reporting it?  Or how very recently a highschooler got absolutely railroaded on Twitter, because he dared ask a Finnish gender expert at UN headquarters if she could define a woman?  Or how Misha Dillinger (a leftist activist) gets to issue direct death threats with police deeming it not worthy of investigation, but when someone else quotes the bible, they're dragged in court five times?  That our own government has declared itself intersectional, even though it is clearly in opposition to our constitution, which states that everyone is equal in front of the law –– not that every group is entitled to equal outcomes.  Or how our government promised to shorten the immigration proceedings to those who come to Finland to work, but failed (it's still two months, twice the targeted "within one month"); and instead have spent countless hours to try and make it possible for illegal immigrants to stay in Finland living off social security with no requirements to work, unlike Finnish citizens.  By insisting on calling illegal immigrants just immigrants, they can say that anybody against letting illegal immigrants are against immigration –– which none of the parties in the parliament currently are, not even True Finns –– and avoid discussing the entire matter.

Hell, our PM recently declared all supporters of True Finns, about 20% of voters, as racists, and basically no reporter put her to task about that.  For one, there are quite a few different ethnicities within that party, and they're against illegal immigration, not legal immigration.  No reaction, even if it is clear case of defamation (incitement for hatred against a group based on their political views, very illegal in Finland).  While I don't agree with many of their goals, at least they are trying to fix things locally here in Finland, before trying to be a "model for the rest of the world to follow" like the other parties say is most important.

When you go with the flow, you see things as quiet and comfortable, even though you're part of a raging torrent.

Locally here, there is a marginal group of conservative, mostly religious people spreading conspiracy theories about vaccines, 5G killing people, NATO is bad, Trump will save our souls etc. that also behave like Putin supporters.

They are nutjobs, really.  That is why it is so effective to just claim anybody who disagrees with you, one.

I've been called all those, several times, and I'm definitely not any of those, dammit!

This whole thing that "cancelling" and "wokism" would be a thing in our country are so strange and new concepts to me, that I'm sometimes flabbergasted. Must be living under a rock...

Go visit your nearest university, and see what happens if you talk with someone in the cafeteria about how to define a woman, now that it is simply a matter of self-reporting in Finland.  Or anything against the prevailing Twitter ideology, really.  In particular, go visit the faculty of educational sciences (pedagogiska fakulteten) in Helsinki or Tampere, to see the world the students, and your kids (or grandkids) teachers live in, and ask honest questions about the effects of inclusivity and multiculturalism in the classroom, and how they hope to fix the issues (and get Finnish PISA scores back up).

Do not be surprised when someone in alert colors yells at you and throws something at you, because in their view, you are a monster, defined so by the questions you ask.

[JohanH]

Really?  You don't remember Li Andersson claiming that leftist violence is different?  You forgot the new law that states anyone can change their gender once a year simply by reporting it?  Or how very recently a highschooler got absolutely railroaded on Twitter, because he dared ask a Finnish gender expert at UN headquarters if she could define a woman?  Or how Misha Dillinger (a leftist activist) gets to issue direct death threats with police deeming it not worthy of investigation, but when someone else quotes the bible, they're dragged in court five times?  That our own government has declared itself intersectional, even though it is clearly in opposition to our constitution, which states that everyone is equal in front of the law –– not that every group is entitled to equal outcomes.  Or how our government promised to shorten the immigration proceedings to those who come to Finland to work, but failed (it's still two months, twice the targeted "within one month"); and instead have spent countless hours to try and make it possible for illegal immigrants to stay in Finland living off social security with no requirements to work, unlike Finnish citizens.  By insisting on calling illegal immigrants just immigrants, they can say that anybody against letting illegal immigrants are against immigration –– which none of the parties in the parliament currently are, not even True Finns –– and avoid discussing the entire matter.

You clearly have a different view of things.  I don't see it that way.

Go visit your nearest university, and see what happens if you talk with someone in the cafeteria about how to define a woman, now that it is simply a matter of self-reporting in Finland.

I don't have a problem with people that want to define their gender, so I'm not interested in asking such questions.

But I do agree that we have to watch closely the matter of integration and education. Still, it's better to give people a chance than to build walls around ourselves.

[Nominal Animal]

You clearly have a different view of things.  I don't see it that way.

That is fine; some of my friends don't see it the way I do either.

Go visit your nearest university, and see what happens if you talk with someone in the cafeteria about how to define a woman, now that it is simply a matter of self-reporting in Finland.

I don't have a problem with people that want to define their gender, so I'm not interested in asking such questions.

Problem? Asking questions?

I told you that if you have an interesting discussion with say a professor about these things in a cafeteria, and one of the students overhears part of it (or even the fact that you are discussing it in the first place), they are likely to attack you verbally, either directly or more likely behind your back, within the student body social media, "labeling" you and tarnishing your reputation.  For example, they may actively object to you participating in a project because of such labeling.
If the vicarious offense-taker happens to be one of the activist students, they may attack you physically.  They certainly believe it is their right to do so.

I told you that, because I do not want you to simply believe me, and I think it is a very simple way you can verify this for yourself.

I do not have any problem with any gender, cis or trans or anything else.  I am perfectly happy to interact with anyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, orientation, species, or phylum.  The one problem I have with gender is that I often miss cues that others consider clear and obvious; to some those are important to acknowledge, and I sometimes fail to do so, unintentionally.  (It is why I use predominantly "they" in English, too: that way I don't need to worry about it.)

I brought up self-defining gender, because it will lead to misuse, and I am interested in ideas on how to curb/avoid those, without making things harder to those whose life is improved via legal assertion of their self-defined gender.  The law has been set, but there is no discussion about that, because it has devolved into a shouting match between "it won't happen" and "it will happen all the time".  We still have many gender quotas in statutes, too; are they still valid, and do they achieve the purpose they were created for?
I am interested in such things, because I am interested in all ways we could make our societies better, at the individual level.  It is how I care, through discussions as if these things were solvable problems, being a thing-oriented person.

I very rarely have any problems with those I am talking with face-to-face, even if the disagreement is deep.  Many seem to find me easy to open up to, because I am easy to "read", and I truly listen to what they are saying.  It is those who take offense on behalf of someone else who isn't there when hearing triggering words or concepts being mentioned, regardless of the context, that have attacked me –– and I've only found out afterwards, when the damage is done, I'm labeled, and there is nothing I can do about it.  A big part of this is that when having a technical or political discussion, I do not mind playing the devil's advocate, in order to draw out the underlying reasons behind opinions and approaches.  (Simply put, I do not care about opinions per se, but I care and highly value hearing the reasoning behind said opinions.)

Still, it's better to give people a chance than to build walls around ourselves.

Exactly, I agree 100%.  My point is that the actions taken now, the enforcement of politically correct and socially just speech, in fact builds those walls.

Even moreso intersectionalism and multiculturalism (or, more correctly, cultural relativism), because it requires individuals to recognize other and actively acknowledge them as other by adjusting their behaviour and expectations based on who they interact with.  It does not work, and never has.
I do not want monoculturalism either, just cohesion by treating every individual equally: equality in face of law, equality of opportunity, no discrimination; not equality of outcome through "positive" discrimination.

[james_s]

I told you that if you have an interesting discussion with say a professor about these things in a cafeteria, and one of the students overhears part of it (or even the fact that you are discussing it in the first place), they are likely to attack you verbally, either directly or more likely behind your back, within the student body social media, "labeling" you and tarnishing your reputation.  For example, they may actively object to you participating in a project because of such labeling.
If the vicarious offense-taker happens to be one of the activist students, they may attack you physically.  They certainly believe it is their right to do so.

That's the biggest problem with all this, you can't even ask a question, questioning the prevailing narrative is seen as an attack on it and you are immediately branded phobic, hateful, etc. It is absolutely imperative that we are able to have an open discussion, that one is allowed to disagree or present an alternate point of view. You will never change a person's mind by force, all you will succeed in doing is teaching them to keep their view to themselves while quietly digging in their heals. It's almost impossible to even find a place anymore where you can discuss anything controversial without being shut down or getting dogpiled and branded as some kind of monster.

[SiliconWizard]

Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.

[Tomorokoshi]

Yep. The orwellian program is actually progressing at an alarming rate, and it's no joke. I think many people will figure it out when it's too late.

In what way, specifically?