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

[tooki]

It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion. 

I don't care how Dave runs his forum, it's his forum, he can do what he want.

Of course. I should have mentioned that my intent in my post above wasn’t to argue the politics, nor Dave’s right to run the forum how he sees fit, but to try and explain why the politics draw people back in, and why the topic may be more inherently political than he realizes.

But I think the above statement by tooki should be thought of by more people. Just because a narrative is more common in some English speaking social media, doesn't mean that it should be used as a fact. A lot of people in other countries will react to the specifically American conservative opinions and narratives as strange, because they are not that common as some would like to believe.

Yep. Terms that have become politicized can end up having very different meanings to different groups, and those meanings can change yet again when borrowed into other languages. (And then speakers of different languages may not realize they aren’t talking about the same thing.)

The problem I see here on eevblog is that the conservative usages (mostly in the context of outrage) are bandied about as if they were neutral terms, but they’re not — and thus political debates begin.

[mendip_discovery]

I wish they had done more of the cartoon series. I quite enjoyed that.

The bit where his mum takes him to the doctors and the ahem Doctor says "I'm sorry but you son is an Engineer" had a good laugh from me. I have used it to explain some of the socially awkward engineers that I experience onsite. Every good company has one, usually a bit awkward, people often misunderstand them so get upset at what they say, but get them on a technical question and they really start to open up.

[james_s]

It seems that whereas others hear hoofbeats & say "Just horses", you think "Unicorns" & post great slabs of text to try to batter people into agreement with you.
When they maintain their disagreement, you accuse them of cancelling you.

Where did he say anything about anyone cancelling him?

Quoting him directly:-
"Not thru any action of my own, though, this time.  It is just that what I described in #504 a bit over a week ago as a pattern happening often in Finland, repeated here on your forum a few hours ago, causing the derailment.



I have to admit, as a tactic to get people to silence themselves, it does work.  It definitely decreases my willingness to engage anyone on this general subject in the future.  Not because of fear of cancellation, but just out of sheer disgust.

I think you need to re-read that again. He said "NOT because of fear of cancellation". It seems that you read into it what you wanted it to say and not what it did say. He never said anyone was cancelling him.

[james_s]

I don't care how Dave runs his forum, it's his forum, he can do what he want. But I think the above statement by tooki should be thought of by more people. Just because a narrative is more common in some English speaking social media, doesn't mean that it should be used as a fact. A lot of people in other countries will react to the specifically American conservative opinions and narratives as strange, because they are not that common as some would like to believe.

Define "conservative opinion".

I'm not a conservative, but on some topics I agree with those that are, on others I don't. What I struggle to deal with is the fact that for so many people there are two buckets that everyone gets shoehorned into. I'm not a member of a group, I'm an individual, there's one of me, no other person has quite exactly the same views and opinions across the board as I do. Free speech and not shunning someone for an opinion was never a conservative opinion until very recently. During the 1960s the counterculture (hippies) were fighting for the right to free speech and free expression and it was the conservatives that were all about conformity and tried to silence and shun those that didn't fit the mold. It kind of blindsided me to realize that our far left was the side engaging in this behavior now, I didn't see it coming, I considered myself very liberal throughout most of my life and only very recently realized that I barely recognize modern day liberalism. That still doesn't make me a conservative. I believe very strongly in individualism and personal freedom and very much dislike groupthink. That's something I always considered a very liberal viewpoint.

[tooki]

There’s a lot to unpack there, james_s, but I’ve already been warned to stop talking politics in this thread so I dare not address the points, even though I’d like to.

[james_s]

Fair enough, I don't want to piss off Dave or anyone else really, I actually hate politics and would be happy to not encounter them at all but it is getting harder and harder and people are more polarized than ever. Growing up my dad was a republican and my mom a democrat and I don't remember that ever being an issue, they didn't see eye to eye on some things but I can't remember there ever being an argument about it, used to be people were allowed to have different opinions and it just wasn't a big deal. I try to be accepting of everyone, I have friends from many walks of life with many different political views from what would probably be called far right to far left. One of my best friends is gay, one of my good friends for many years is trans, I have friends and colleagues of various races and cultures, sometimes I agree, sometimes I partially agree, sometimes I disagree, ultimately it doesn't really matter. I have found some common ground with all of these people and we get along, they all have some redeeming characteristic, usually a common interest. I wish more people could rediscover the ability to agree to disagree. A person my see the world differently than I do, and being on the autistic spectrum it seems *most* people see the world differently than I do. It doesn't make them a monster and I don't hate them. My biggest issue with this "cancel culture" or whatever you want to call it is that I resent being pressured to hate somebody because of the opinions they hold. Someone could be a brutal dictator and if they have some common ground, like a shared interest in one of my hobbies I would be happy to discuss that with them, their other characteristics and views are just not that important to me. I don't care what a person does on their own time or in their own home, and I certainly know that nobody ever has had their mind changed by force. If you want to change a person's views or educate them, finding common ground and forming some kind of bond is far more effective than shunning, lecturing or attacking them. My fellow citizens of differing views and political affiliations are not my enemy and not something to be destroyed.

[EEVblog]

Of course. I should have mentioned that my intent in my post above wasn’t to argue the politics, nor Dave’s right to run the forum how he sees fit, but to try and explain why the politics draw people back in, and why the topic may be more inherently political than he realizes.

I understand full well how political it is, that's why I'm trying to stop it as best I can.

The problem I see here on eevblog is that the conservative usages (mostly in the context of outrage) are bandied about as if they were neutral terms, but they’re not — and thus political debates begin.

The political debates are inevitable, guaranteed in fact regardless of what is said or how it's said.
This is why for this thread to continue to be useful we have to try and stay away from politics (and social debates) as much as possible.

[EEVblog]

The fact that Dilbert has/had large popularity among nerds does not, IMHO, justify a special exemption to the no-politics rule, given that the entire premise is inherently political.

Ok, fine, how about no cancel culture either then?
How about every post from now on that's not directly about Adams/Dibert gets deleted, would that suit you?

Of course "cancel culture" involves "politics". But you can talk about "cancel culture" without dragging too much "politics" into it.
For example, people could talk about their personal experiences and how it's impacted them, their friends and collegues, their workplace, their career etc.
"Politics" really starts to get out of hand when people start to debate it and then extended the scope into broader areas of politics and society. Like I had to tell people to stop talking about Putin, I mean WTF, why did anyone even need to bring up him? Why?
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I try and tell people stop the "politics".
Heck, the politics would be appropriate discussion if it directly involved Adams and Dilbert.

It would actually be more useful to have a "no debating" rule on this thread, that would inherently lead to less "politics".

[EEVblog]

Mr Addams is either a victim or he is not, & we have had plenty of posts on both sides, but if we try somehow analysing  the cause/s of his situation, the problem is it is difficult to stick to that topic when is it blends seamlessly into so many related ones.

No need to analyse any of this, if you actually listen to him (which most people have not), he states repeatedly that he is not a victim, he's not complaining about what happened to him, and yes what he said was racists and that's the entire point of it. After the dust has settled it's clearly a political cancellation from the left. No one on the right/conserative side of politics has cancelled him, no black people have cancelled him, it was ultimately a political takedown because he has influence in politics. He knowingly offered up an opportunity to the political left to cancel him and they took it. They would have been dumb not to. That's politics.

Well, I seem to have missed something important with this. Suppose I walk into a bank with a shotgun, tell them I am going to rob the place and the security guard shoots me (almost) dead. I then laugh in his face and tell him "Ha! I knew you would do that but I am not really a robber and pretended to be so only so you would shoot me. The laugh is on you!"

That's the kind of thing that comes across here: he isn't actually racist but made out he was just so the anti-racist crowd would have a go at him, which they did. And he thinks he scored something over them? Hmmm.

What he wanted to achieve was, in his own words, to reframe the conversation. His focus in the last few years has been these "reframes", so much so that his new book is eniterly about reframes.
The new book now won't be publish end of year as his publisher has dropped him. It'll still come out, but he's not sure in what form or how.
He seems to have succeeded to, many people are now talking about race in a different frame, and he's being invoted on many shows to talk about it.

[m k]

Level headed current issues and hot topics are pretty simple, just don't take it personally, stop name calling and don't dig strawman name callings from others.

If I say that minorities are much more racist toward majorities than the opposite and El Salvador has built a 40k prison for gang members, then what.
Only rational way to continue is to ask more info.
All other ways are more or less irrational, the text has no more info than it has.

I could also have used "can be" instead of "are" and change the whole thing.

"Are you" and "do you really think" are two different things.
"How the hell you can think that" is still the latter.

For the last "Q" I may have answered something like "quite easily, see, I can do it even with my eyes closed."
Don't go with it and there are no ammo.
Yes, easy for me to say.

[tooki]

Of course "cancel culture" involves "politics". But you can talk about "cancel culture" without dragging too much "politics" into it.
For example, people could talk about their personal experiences and how it's impacted them, their friends and collegues, their workplace, their career etc.

I really don't think that is possible when the different political sides don't even believe the term to mean the same thing, as I explained (with sources) above. It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".

[Zero999]

Unfortunately it's going off the rails again. The problem with deleting posts is that you piss people off and they can potentially leave the forum in a huff. Yet I don't want to have to say "Please keep it on topic" every page. And I don't want to lock it. So 

The problem is that as soon as you and others introduce (and keep using) the term “cancel culture” as a synonym for “censorship, vengeance, and oppression”, you’re using a partisan definition of the term, which inexorably draws politics into the mix.

See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/ ; I assume the results would be similar in other English speaking countries, too.

It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion. 

The fact that Dilbert has/had large popularity among nerds does not, IMHO, justify a special exemption to the no-politics rule, given that the entire premise is inherently political.

Those results are interesting. As a Brit, I've only ever heard of the term accountability, in relation to cancel culture in US left-leaning outlets and a minority of posters in this thread.

I suppose it's not surprising. It just proves cancel culture generally is in favour of the left and against the right. It's easy to support it and call it accountability, if it's not you who's being censored. Most Russains and Chinese government officials also support cancelling those who have expressed views contrary to those in power. They wouldn't call it censorship, but holding enemies of the people to account.

I have tried to look at it from both sides, but no one appeared to ackowledge me.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4745585/#msg4745585

I can defintely see the point that companies and organisations should be free to choose who they associate themselves with, or employ and that I think most people would want to distance themselves from someone who's truely racist. The problem is the word has become so nebulus over the last decade. Some would consider thsoe who aren't down with BLM to be racists. The fact that companies and organisations face pressure from lef-wing activists to cancel those with "problematic" views is a big problem.

[james_s]

I really don't think that is possible when the different political sides don't even believe the term to mean the same thing, as I explained (with sources) above. It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".

I thought the definition was pretty clear cut, cancel culture is bullying by mobs, for example demanding someone be cancelled rather than just simply not attending their speech and threatening consequences if they are not. Bullying, intimidation, threats of violence, etc. Some people seem to either pretend it is not happening, or find ways to justify it ("those people are evil, they deserve this treatment", etc) but what other definition is there? Or is "it doesn't exist, it's just a right wing talking point" considered a definition?

[james_s]

I can defintely see the point that companies and organisations should be free to choose who they associate themselves with, or employ and that I think most people would want to distance themselves from someone who's truely racist. The problem is the word has become so nebulus over the last decade. Some would consider thsoe who aren't down with BLM to be racists. The fact that companies and organisations face pressure from lef-wing activists to cancel those with "problematic" views is a big problem.

The whole issue is the companies (or people) facing pressure part. If someone or some entity wants to cut ties with someone over their views, fine, but what we have been seeing lately is companies and individuals pressured by threat to distance themselves. There are a lot of people now that seem to believe that everyone and every organization should be forced to take a stand on an issue, remaining neutral or private on the matter is not an option, and that is some scary and very authoritarian behavior.

[EEVblog]

The whole issue is the companies (or people) facing pressure part. If someone or some entity wants to cut ties with someone over their views, fine, but what we have been seeing lately is companies and individuals pressured by threat to distance themselves. There are a lot of people now that seem to believe that everyone and every organization should be forced to take a stand on an issue, remaining neutral or private on the matter is not an option, and that is some scary and very authoritarian behavior.

And that's how "cancel culture" works.
And it's worse than that, as I've said before. You can have a company cancel you/your talk/whatever just for being associated with the wrong person.

[m k]

What is the root of a root, systemic bullying of those who are now waken?
If so then it's difficult to stop, many waken ones lose their internal power if they are not shouting it constantly.
I'm sure the condition has a name.

[m k]

It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".

Only if you're so in it that you can't be a bystander.
But then you're not talking about the issue you're talking about you, so taking it personally.

[Zucca]

this thread is so much fun to read   

[m k]

Yes, those who have no experience can't really understand those who are living it.
But reacting by cancel is also irrational to those who are not against others.

Is cancel a revenge?
At least hate is clearly visible.

[tooki]

I really don't think that is possible when the different political sides don't even believe the term to mean the same thing, as I explained (with sources) above. It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".

I thought the definition was pretty clear cut, cancel culture is bullying by mobs, for example demanding someone be cancelled rather than just simply not attending their speech and threatening consequences if they are not. Bullying, intimidation, threats of violence, etc. Some people seem to either pretend it is not happening, or find ways to justify it ("those people are evil, they deserve this treatment", etc) but what other definition is there? Or is "it doesn't exist, it's just a right wing talking point" considered a definition?

I literally provided a link covering this exact topic. My point is literally that the definition is anything but “clear cut”.

[tooki]

Unfortunately it's going off the rails again. The problem with deleting posts is that you piss people off and they can potentially leave the forum in a huff. Yet I don't want to have to say "Please keep it on topic" every page. And I don't want to lock it. So 

The problem is that as soon as you and others introduce (and keep using) the term “cancel culture” as a synonym for “censorship, vengeance, and oppression”, you’re using a partisan definition of the term, which inexorably draws politics into the mix.

See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/17/how-americans-feel-about-cancel-culture-and-offensive-speech-in-6-charts/ ; I assume the results would be similar in other English speaking countries, too.

It’s frustrating — and thus tempting to respond to — to see so many conservative opinions and misrepresentations presented as fact, rather than opinion. But as soon as anyone attempts to debate the point, “it’s politics” (even though the original statements were, too…) and you tell us to stop, but then yourself go right back to reiterating the conservative claim/opinion. 

The fact that Dilbert has/had large popularity among nerds does not, IMHO, justify a special exemption to the no-politics rule, given that the entire premise is inherently political.

Those results are interesting. As a Brit, I've only ever heard of the term accountability, in relation to cancel culture in US left-leaning outlets and a minority of posters in this thread.

I suppose it's not surprising. It just proves cancel culture generally is in favour of the left and against the right. It's easy to support it and call it accountability, if it's not you who's being censored. Most Russains and Chinese government officials also support cancelling those who have expressed views contrary to those in power. They wouldn't call it censorship, but holding enemies of the people to account.

It doesn’t prove that at all. All it proves is that both sides aren’t even debating the same thing, since they don’t have a shared definition of the terminology.

[SiliconWizard]

It's possible to discuss many things without involving politics, but it's basically impossible with extremely politically-loaded terms like "cancel culture".

Not sure what "many things" covers exactly. But almost all matters involving social interactions involve politics in the general sense. So it's not possible to discuss them without involving politics, in fact.

What we can do is remain calm and courteous, and stick to what people *say* rather than extrapolate things we project onto them from just a few words. That would be a good start.

[EEVblog]

It doesn’t prove that at all. All it proves is that both sides aren’t even debating the same thing, since they don’t have a shared definition of the terminology.

You do know that you don't actually have to respond to and debate people, right?

[EEVblog]

UPDATE:
Adams answered a question on today's show about the Dilbert archives and what he's doing with them. He said he hasn't figured out where to put them yet. So sounds as though he has all the rights, but maybe not to the domain?
Dilbert.com now redirects to his Link tree which links to Locals, Youtube, and Twitter.

Maybe he does now own/have control of dilbert.com, but it could also just be the syndication company doing him a favour with a redirect.
IMO it was a bad business decision not to completely own and control the website. If he did, everything could and would have just stayed the same.

[EEVblog]

Is cancel a revenge?

It's punishment for non-compliance with their "social order" for want of a better word. Those who wield it are otherwise weak and pathetic people who have discovered it's a way to gain power and control.