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

[james_s]

True, but most of the emigrants come from one of a few locations, so the people who have migrated to America and Europe are much less diverse than Africa.

That may be, but I couldn't tell you which locations they come from. I've never met anyone that I know of from the Caribbean, I've met two people that immigrated here from Africa, I never asked what particular countr(ies). Both of them were very nice friendly people that had successful careers.

[Nominal Animal]

The idea of majority oppressing minorities, and that a society can be modeled as oppressed/oppressor groups vying for power, was first described by Hegel in 1802.  Later, in 1848, Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."
The underlying concept of defining societies and societal change via class conflict is a central tenet in Marxism.

As philosophies go, they are quite interesting, and if compared to feudal systems, even the Communist Manifesto is progressive and preferable.  I do warmly recommend anyone to look up on the aforementioned people, even if you completely disagree with their conclusions, because there is a lot of thought in there. Even if faulty, there is a lot of good in there.  (Just another example of why it is important to not reject the entire thing or person, just because of a few problematic/faulty/disagreeable parts.)

But the point here is not that this or that is Marxist or socialist or communist.  Not at all.

The point we should understand is that the idea of majority always oppressing minority, or even modeling human societies using the oppressor-oppressed model, is an ideology and a philosophy, not a fact, theory, or even a scientific model that can be made to fit real world statistics.

Some people choose to believe it axiomatically, and many (at least in Finland) have been and are taught to believe so without questioning it, just like some choose to believe in a supreme being, or the cycle of rebirth, or that humans are fundamentally different from all other animal life on this planet, and so on.
Whether you believe it or not is not the question; what matters is that we recognize it as just a belief, an ideology, a philosophy, not a fact.
And that alternatives, much better rational/logical models for human social organization do exist.

A core part of cancellation (or shunning, as it has been described in history) is that some things are beyond questioning.  This is evil, because all the progress humankind has ever made can be tracked down to asking questions.  This, and not any particular political view, is what we must denounce for logic and rationality to prevail, and future generations to have a better world.

It is important to understand that even in the middle ages, when they killed people as witches (more men than women, and usually by hanging, here in Finland, oddly enough), those who accused and were the first to lit the fires, truly believed they were protecting their own society, and were being good people.  They were the "woke", the righteous, of their own time.  Belief and hope and feelings do not suffice, if we are really interested in better outcomes for all.

Now, apply this to how Scott Adams and others are being treated, and how you yourself treat others based on their occasionally weird/bad/disagreeable opinions, and the questions they may ask.

End Rant.

[james_s]

I believe *nothing* is beyond questioning. Gravity can be questioned, morality can be questioned, the laws of physics can be questioned, you better have some damn good evidence if you expect me to change my view on something like the laws of physics but I encourage people to question none the less.

[EEVblog]

Frankly, it sounds funny to me when the people call today everything "progressive", or "woke", or "somehow left" marxistic.

Interesting to note that the founders of BLM have described themselves publicly as "trained Marxists"

[Kim Christensen]

A core part of cancellation (or shunning, as it has been described in history) is that some things are beyond questioning.  This is evil, because all the progress humankind has ever made can be tracked down to asking questions.  This, and not any particular political view, is what we must denounce for logic and rationality to prevail, and future generations to have a better world.

Is it though?
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow? I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil. So yes indeed, some things are beyond question. The real debate is what belongs in "the list" of banned ideas, and not whether the act of cancelling is good or evil.

[EEVblog]

Adams again reiterated today that the only way to get Dilbert from now on will be via locals. And that he is relieved that he now no longer has the pressure of what he can and can't say in the comic.

[james_s]

Is it though?
If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow? I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil. So yes indeed, some things are beyond question. The real debate is what belongs in "the list" of banned ideas, and not whether the act of cancelling is good or evil.

You can absolutely question whether murder is appropriate. There are well established laws already against *advocating* murder, you cannot incite violence, you cannot make direct threats, you cannot slander an individual, but it is by no means a banned idea. You are free to write a book or essay about murder, you can discuss murder, you can stage a pretend murder mystery for entertainment, there are movies about murder.

Nothing belongs in the list of banned ideas, and the act of cancelling (mob bullying) is always evil, period.

[EEVblog]

If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow? I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil. So yes indeed, some things are beyond question. The real debate is what belongs in "the list" of banned ideas, and not whether the act of cancelling is good or evil.

It is possible to talk about and have different opinions on the two things at the same things.
For example, you can support someone being booted from a social media patform for some view, but not being de-banked or denied another service like Uber for just their views. Or denined some fundemental service.
For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".

[Kim Christensen]

You can absolutely question whether murder is appropriate. There are well established laws already against *advocating* murder,

You contradict yourself right there.

[HuronKing]

Nothing belongs in the list of banned ideas, and the act of cancelling (mob bullying) is always evil, period.

Let's flip this script for a moment. As far as I'm able to tell (so correct me if I'm wrong) the discontinuing of the Dilbert comics from all the major newspapers happened before there was any mob rallied up to petition the newspapers to do so. If anything, it seems that as soon as Adams said what he said, they were already pulling it.

I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here? There seems to be some unstated assumption that Scott Adams is *entitled* to have his comic strip run in these newspapers because he is rich, famous, and has done so for decades regardless of whatever stuff he says that offends the editorial boards of these newspapers.

But in reality, it's really the opinions of these editors and corporate managers that matter. They're not on Twitter bullying Adams. They may just straight up disagree with him and say "ya know what? We don't want you on our platform anymore." And that's that. Indeed, it's been pointed out here that half the country probably finds Dilbert mildly amusing - or doesn't give two-damns about what he said.

So by laissez-faire libertarian ideology... they, the editors, have every right to pull his strips from their platforms. Regardless if even the majority of the country wants Adams to continue to be published in their newspapers. In fact, this is how ALL mass media works - right-wing, left-wing, doesn't matter. Rupert Murdoch, for example, does not give a shit about your free speech or mine - only the agenda they care about. This is the exact opposite of a mob. It's a very, very small contingent of corporate leaders who make these decisions.

This goes back to what I said much, much earlier in this thread. Corporations are people (so a single CEO can wield a HUGE amount of power to ensure someone they don't like never works again). Money is speech. The more money you have, the more speech you have. And these corporations control the algorithms that show you the media you get exposed to.

This is why I'm not persuaded by appeals to the irrationality of mob bullying - or even that it actually exists. The mob doesn't even know what is happening unless the algorithm shows it to them... and this is exactly the kind of discourse our technocracy has created. In some ways, we asked for this because we asked for media feeds to be built customized to our desires, beliefs, and interests.

[Kim Christensen]

For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".

Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.

[Nominal Animal]

A core part of cancellation (or shunning, as it has been described in history) is that some things are beyond questioning.  This is evil, because all the progress humankind has ever made can be tracked down to asking questions.  This, and not any particular political view, is what we must denounce for logic and rationality to prevail, and future generations to have a better world.

Is it though?

Yes, I truly believe so, based on everything I've read about human history and human societies.

If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?

Advocate ≠ question.  We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.
(Although, it is a pet peeve of mine that such laws are very selectively enforced here in Finland right now.)

For example, I do believe we should ask questions on whether death penalty is necessary, and why; exactly what constitutes rape; and so on.

I would definitely allow someone to "advocate" murder by publicly advocating death penalty for certain crimes, for example.  (The last capital punishment in peacetime in Finland was in 1825, by the way.)

I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil.

I do believe it would be.

First, exposing bad ideas for what they are works much better than hiding or banning them.

Second, any boundary you set for things beyond questioning, will be exploited, by silencing those who pose a political risk to those in control of the position of the boundary.  It has always been, and such things always will be, because we are humans: there are always those who look for personal gain.

Third, speech and communication is rife with errors.  For example, when I happen to say I believe we should emphasize therapy and mental health approaches over gender affirming surgeries, especially so for anyone under 25, am I being compassionate or transphobic?  I believe so based on what I know about "temporary" gender dysphoria being common in adolescents (part of growing up, really), and I want us to support every individual in a way that gives the best chance for each individual to be happy.  There is absolutely no transphobia or anything like that in my opinion: it is based purely on compassion.
Let's say you disagree, and truly believe that I am anti-trans and blocking people from their happiness.  Who gets to decide what my utterance means?  Who gets to decide whether regardless of my intent, my utterances are worthy of cancellation?
I could maybe accept a panel, including psychologists and linguists, discussing each case at length, and then making a decision –– somewhat similar to a court of law ––; but I for sure will not accept mob rule on this.

Based on individual human psychology, and proper models of rational human behaviour (for example, game theory), I have no option but consider shunning/cancellation much, much worse, than its apparent benefits.

[Nominal Animal]

I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?

I honestly thought we discussed this already.

The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.

The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority.  It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.

[Kim Christensen]

If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?

Advocate ≠ question.  We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.

Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

[EEVblog]

Nothing belongs in the list of banned ideas, and the act of cancelling (mob bullying) is always evil, period.

Let's flip this script for a moment. As far as I'm able to tell (so correct me if I'm wrong) the discontinuing of the Dilbert comics from all the major newspapers happened before there was any mob rallied up to petition the newspapers to do so. If anything, it seems that as soon as Adams said what he said, they were already pulling it.

His syndication company parted ways with him. That instantly gets the strip pulled from everything everywhere, and books deal gone, the whole shebang.

[james_s]

For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".

While I wouldn't ban, I would be ok with de-prioritizing those that engage in risky activity such as not getting vaccinated. When there are not enough hospital beds to go around, difficult choices have to be made, it's not an ideal situation but it is reality. Likewise I would prioritize a liver transplant to someone that had cancer over someone that damaged their liver by a lifetime of heavy drinking.

[fourfathom]

Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

Do you honestly believe this?  So many counter-examples come to mind that I'm not going to bother giving one.  But I can if you really need one.

[wilfred]

Adams again reiterated today that the only way to get Dilbert from now on will be via locals. And that he is relieved that he now no longer has the pressure of what he can and can't say in the comic.

I went to find what "locals" is. In the process I saw this come up in the search results on a website called Politico.

"The editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, which dumped “Dilbert” last year, said the comic strip “went from being hilarious to being hurtful and mean.” The Los Angeles Times, which joined dozens of other newspapers in dropping the comic following last week’s remarks, had quietly replaced four of Adams’ strips last year.

“He kind of ran out of office jokes and started integrating all this other stuff so after a while, it became hard to distinguish between Scott Adams and ‘Dilbert,’” said Mike Peterson, columnist for the industry blog The Daily Cartoonist."

It was here https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/27/dilbert-demise-scott-adams-00084665

It's been ages since I lost interest in Dilbert but when this all blew up I went and looked at more recent strips and it didn't have the same "vibe" in poking fun at the absurdities of cubicle life. But that was only a few dozen strips.

But I did see Adams say he knew the risk he was taking and has no regrets. He also tried to explain it in terms of a "real world" made up of the "nice" people he actually meets and the "screen world" defined by a broader cast of characters with a variety of individual motives. Apparently the screen world spilled over into the real world via some form of hell portal (?). I didn't think this real world view made up of only nice people you meet (edit: and a Karen) was very convincing. The real world is made up of more than just people you meet in person and they also share their own motives. I think the screen world is just a bit more anonymous and immediate and amplified. Or maybe a lot more.

I wonder what Dilbert will have to say now. I wonder if Adams should have created a new comic strip and left Dilbert to carry on as I remember  him from 20 years ago. If Dilbert does morph into an angrier version I don't think it will really be Dilbert. The one thing I never associated with Dilbert was anger. I wonder if Scott Adams is angrier these days and he couldn't do the "old" Dilbert even if he tried. Or he doesn't want to try hard enough so he lit the fuse.

[SiliconWizard]

I'm pretty sure that, while his "office jokes" were seen as pretty harmless in the past, ever since the "great resignation" movement and people more and more questioning the traditional work life model as servile employees having to tolerate office rules and politics, many companies now see him as a threat. Wouldn't be surprised if some large companies were behind this canceling.

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/toxic-culture-is-driving-the-great-resignation/

[Kim Christensen]

Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

Do you honestly believe this?  So many counter-examples come to mind that I'm not going to bother giving one.  But I can if you really need one.

I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.

[james_s]

Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

Do you honestly believe this?  So many counter-examples come to mind that I'm not going to bother giving one.  But I can if you really need one.

I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.

Are you out of your mind? I just.. I can't even comprehend how you get from A to B.

If I question whether there should be a law against posession of cocaine, that is absolutely NOT the same as advocating for possession of cocaine. Not even close. 

[Kim Christensen]

I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.

Are you out of your mind? I just.. I can't even comprehend how you get from A to B.
If I question whether there should be a law against posession of cocaine, that is absolutely NOT the same as advocating for possession of cocaine. Not even close. 

It is though. You are then saying that it is OK for people to possess cocaine and people shouldn't be punished for doing so. The fact that you cannot see that, is on you. Not me.

[Nominal Animal]

If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?

Advocate ≠ question.  We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.

Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

No, of course it is not!

For example, I can, and have, questioned whether Finland should have a death penalty for serial murderers, to find the reason why we don't (via comparison to countries that do have the death penalty).  (I am also quite interested in the history as to why certain countries have it in law, and why it is or is not still applied in practice.  It tells me what other people in other cultural contexts have perceived as fair and just.)

If it were to come to a vote, I will vote against capitol punishment in Finland, because of my personal view of the world.

Indeed, questioning a subject as if you were a proponent for it, is an extremely important investigative and educational tool.
Ever heard of the Socratic method?
I practice it all the time, and not just in human-to-human communications.  When I do IT security, I 'don' the persona of the worst black hat I can imagine (and that version of NA is a true asshole) to find out the weak points, and how to defend the position I truly 'advocate' for.

[EEVblog]

For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".

Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.

I said "talks and demands", but yes, it has happened:
https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/covid-vaccines-unvaccinated-patients-not-priority-on-organ-transplant-waitlist-warns-ama-c-4877733

[EEVblog]

I'm pretty sure that, while his "office jokes" were seen as pretty harmless in the past, ever since the "great resignation" movement and people more and more questioning the traditional work life model as servile employees having to tolerate office rules and politics, many companies now see him as a threat. Wouldn't be surprised if some large companies were behind this canceling.
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/toxic-culture-is-driving-the-great-resignation/

He mentioned this on a show recently. Dilbert was actually incredibly controversial at the time, and papers refused to carry it becasue it was making fun of their big company work culture.
Many saw this a golden opportunity to get rid of him, not for that these days, everyones over that, but because he's very influential politically and there are many people in power (almost all on the left) that would love him to be removed from the political influence equation.