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

[james_s]

atheism, but it's a religion for all practical purposes.

This is simply bollocks. 
It's like saying that the absence of any ailment is an illness in itself.
Or (on the converse, to give a non-negative example) that the absence of any virtue is a virtue in itself.
But there are some atheistic religions, I'll concede that.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.

[fourfathom]

The whole "woke" thing is a pet peeve of mine...  Like so many other things, I don't believe it has any commonly understood definition other than trying to label someone/something as oppositional to the users conservative viewpoints.  And I also find it ironic that people use a synonym of "conscious" as an insult, when the opposite meaning would align with "asleep" or "unconscious"...

woke : aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.

See the Wikipedia entry on "Woke": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

This is reasonably close to how I've seen the term evolve during the 21st century (I was unaware of it prior to the BLM era.)  Certainly it has been applied by the "right" for their own purposes -- please show me a political term that hasn't been appropriated by the opposition -- but "Woke" has a history of usage, and "a synonym of conscious" may be the literal meaning but in practice, as used by the "left" it has intentionally implied much more than that . 

[james_s]

Besides, the US political system is "far-right to right-wing" (Republican) or "right-wing to centre-right" (Democrat).  There are very few mainstream left-wing politicians in the US, if we use the academic definition of left-wing.  (You could apply some kind of political relativism if you want but I don't think it's really sensible because it makes it difficult to compare with other countries).

If the mainstream left wing politicians in the US are right to center right, then I'm frightened to see what counts as left wing to the rest of the world. Are Stalin and Marx left wing or just left of center? The progressive leftist idiots have gained enormous amounts of clout in recent years, one need only wander around a city like Seattle or Portland for a few hours to see the effect of their misguided policies.

[coppice]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of atheism. The "a" prefix means without. Being atheist means you have no beliefs about Gods or the supernatural. That's quite different from believing there are no Gods or that there is only the natural world.

[james_s]

A wall is to stop people illegally entering your country. "illegal immigration" is not the same as immigration. No sane immigration policy formally includes illegal immigration.

You'd think that wouldn't you? It's totally logical except there are large numbers of people, the ones that get called "far left" here in the USA, that either deliberately confuse illegal and legal immigration, or simply do not perceive any difference, I don't know which it is. If you say you want to secure the border and stop people from entering illegally you are racist, xenophobic and anti-immigrant. It's totally illogical and stupid but that's the climate we are in these days. It may be a small percentage of the population but they are very, very loud and the rest are afraid of attracting their ire.

Personally I don't care if they're coming from Mexico or Sweden or anywhere else, I don't want people pouring in uncontrolled, no sane nation does. It has nothing to do with race, it's simple space and resources.

[james_s]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of atheism. The "a" prefix means without. Being atheist means you have no beliefs about Gods or the supernatural. That's quite different from believing there are no Gods or that there is only the natural world.

Ok I just did, this is copied directly from the dictionary:


atheism [ ey-thee-iz-uhm ]

noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Is that not precisely what I already asserted it means?

[TomKatt]

Personally I don't care if they're coming from Mexico or Sweden or anywhere else, I don't want people pouring in uncontrolled, no sane nation does. It has nothing to do with race, it's simple space and resources.

Seems like I hear that argument all the time, and despite my liberal tendencies I probably agree with you more than disagree.

What bothers me is that's not the same argument that seems to get the loud voices going - we hear slurs against Mexicans specifically, brown skinned people of all races are yelled at in stores and told to "go back where you came from" (even when they're legal Americans) and told by right leaning media that the drug problem is a result of these people who are just looking to survive, when more Americans have likely died from greedy American opioid pharma companies.  This is what we hear from the top and even our leaders.  So it's no surprise to find supporters following suit.

[Zero999]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of atheism. The "a" prefix means without. Being atheist means you have no beliefs about Gods or the supernatural. That's quite different from believing there are no Gods or that there is only the natural world.

Ok I just did, this is copied directly from the dictionary:


atheism [ ey-thee-iz-uhm ]

noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Is that not precisely what I already asserted it means?

Religion doesn't require a deity. Buddhists for example don't believe in god. What I think was meant by that comment is that some of the ideologies radical leftists believe in, are quasi-religious in nature. Many of the far-right in the US may be Christian fundamentalists, but the far-left have equally unscientific beliefs such as a person can simply say they're the opposite sex and it makes it true and that the US is run by white supremacists.

[tom66]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.

The absence of a belief is not a belief. 

To prove that a god (of any kind) exists you would need to prove in the positive - in other words, a claim like "prayer works" which could be falsified by testing e.g. if you could "prey the cancer away".  You cannot rely on the argument of "you can't prove it's not true" as that's an unfalsifiable statement.  As Einstein said, "Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?"  Because that is the same logic.

Most religion is inherently based on faith as the adherents will claim you do not need proof of their god, just faith in their god's existence.

The vast majority of atheists accept that the observable universe is as observed by science and gathered evidence, they don't simply "believe" because they have faith.

[james_s]

Seems like I hear that argument all the time, and despite my liberal tendencies I probably agree with you more than disagree.

What bothers me is that's not the same argument that seems to get the loud voices going - we hear slurs against Mexicans specifically, brown skinned people of all races are yelled at in stores and told to "go back where you came from" (even when they're legal Americans) and told by right leaning media that the drug problem is a result of these people who are just looking to survive, when more Americans have likely died from greedy American opioid pharma companies.  This is what we hear from the top and even our leaders.  So it's no surprise to find supporters following suit.

Well I personally disagree with the racists and other idiots that you mention, and I'm not going around blaming Mexico (or other places) for the drug problem, it's true that there are some countries where a large percentage of the illegal drugs here come from but they are simply meeting a demand, and that demand is created by the personal choices of individuals that choose to abuse drugs. The overprescription of opiates is also a problem, but not all of that is the doctor's fault, there are many, many people that engage in "doctor shopping" until they find one that buys into their claimed symptoms and prescribes the good stuff.

Anyway my point is there are perfectly valid reasons to desire secure borders and controlled immigration, and there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. Being against illegal immigration does not make one racist or xenophobic. If legal immigration has shortfalls then the solution is to improve the process, not to bypass it and simply ignore people flooding over uncontrolled. Personally I think the population is too big already so we should be picky on who we let come here permanently, but that should be based on what they bring to the table, not where they are from or what they look like.

[Nominal Animal]

Are you sure you are remembering this correctly

No, not at all sure.  It was an understanding I had, and having done the same research you did (looking at our posts), I can't find a basis for that understanding.  I suppose it was a lingering feeling of unease at how the exchange went, and eventually merged with the negative real-world experiences I've had.
Apologies.

(Except when you are wrong, of course. )

Oh yeah, I am often wrong.  I do appreciate whenever anyone bothers to explain how and why, because I can then do my own research to verify, and either confirm the error, or provide a counterargument.

[james_s]

The absence of a belief is not a belief. 

True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.

[Nominal Animal]

Personally I don't care if they're coming from Mexico or Sweden or anywhere else, I don't want people pouring in uncontrolled, no sane nation does. It has nothing to do with race, it's simple space and resources.

Seems like I hear that argument all the time, and despite my liberal tendencies I probably agree with you more than disagree.

This is definitely the situation in Finland, too.  People who are trying to separate illegal immigration from legal immigration are slammed with "no person is illegal".

Currently, it takes over two months to get an residence permit even when you already have work in Finland.  Instead of actually fixing that, the government is working on how illegal immigrants (especially people who have been denied refugee status in EU) can stay in Finland and live off social security.
Except that instead of talking about illegal immigrants or non-refugee status asylum seekers, they just use the term "immigrant", and claim that anybody opposing their immigration policy is therefore against all kinds of immigration, and thus inhumane and racist.

It does not help that whenever a statistic shows negative effects or things that do not fit the government agenda, the Finnish solution is to stop gathering and publishing that statistic.

I do not know how to have a logical discussion on this in Finland at all, because of all the semantic and social manipulation going on.  I have "leftist" friends and lots of such acquintances (academic folks), and although their opinions on these matters does not make me "unfriend" them at all and I'm interested in exactly why they have the views they do, I definitely need to completely avoid these topics or I risk them "unfriending" me.

(Among those living off the social security themselves, you do see the opposite view, labeling anyone with a different ethnicity as an illegal immigrant only here for the social security and committing crimes.  Good luck trying to talk them out of that, either.)

[tooki]

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

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

Both can be true.

On the one hand, black Americans often are very overtly racist, but I feel it’s really mostly bark and no bite. While I don’t condone it, I do understand how and why it exists. And frankly, it’s easy for most white Americans to avoid. (For context, my experience comes from living in and around Baltimore for a decade.)

On the other hand, systemic and institutional racism in USA affects blacks more than any other group, and whites are in a very privileged position in this regard. (Yes, there are many poor whites who are socioeconomically no better off, but they’re still infinitely less likely to experience systemic racism and the consequences and dangers that carries.)

[coppice]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, I'm atheist myself, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I can't prove there is no god, I just believe there isn't, it's a belief like any other. Unlike some, I'm not trying to push my belief on others.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of atheism. The "a" prefix means without. Being atheist means you have no beliefs about Gods or the supernatural. That's quite different from believing there are no Gods or that there is only the natural world.

Ok I just did, this is copied directly from the dictionary:


atheism [ ey-thee-iz-uhm ]

noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Is that not precisely what I already asserted it means?

The dictionary? There is only one. Try a better dictionary. Most words around religious issues have very funky definitions in many places. Its almost like people's beliefs make them refuse to face concepts head on.

[Zero999]

On the other hand, systemic and institutional racism in USA affects blacks more than any other group, and whites are in a very privileged position in this regard. (Yes, there are many poor whites who are socioeconomically no better off, but they’re still infinitely less likely to experience systemic racism and the consequences and dangers that carries.)

Where's the proof? Unequal outcome is not necessarily evidence of discrimination. It seems to be the other way around in many respects.

Affirmative action puts whites and Asians with the same qualifications at a disadvantage to blacks. Harvard University is even being sued for discriminating against Asians. Black people in positions of power are allowed to discriminate against white people. For example Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has stated she won't talk to white journalists one on one.  When the number of interactions with the police is taken into account, black people are no more likely to be killed than whites, less if anything. The police are even more careful not to harm a black person, because they know it causes them more trouble. The mainstream media don't help. A gang of blacks beating up a white or Asian person hardly gets a mention in the news, whilst a white officer killing a black criminal makes national headlines.

There are inequalities in society and blacks more of often than not disproportionally worse off, but it's mostly due to other factors, than racism. Perhaps that was the case 60 years ago, but not now.

EDIT:
Oh and it clearly isn't discrimination against blacks. Nigerians do better in the US than whites. It's native blacks who are worse off.
https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerian-immigrants-are-the-most-successful-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s-23a7ea5a0832

[SiliconWizard]

More woke stuff, we were missing that, nice!

[tom66]

The absence of a belief is not a belief. 

True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.

No: agnosticism is saying "there might be a god, but I don't care if there is", whereas atheism is saying "I reject the idea of a god as described in most religious texts, because it is not falsifiable."

[switchabl]

But, most of all, those tossing labels like 'woke' around seem to do so primarily to cause divisive reactions rather than any sincere attempt to convey ideas or constructive discussion.

I don't, nor do the kind of people I like to interact with.

The concept is complex, but at the core its use boils down to "what you are doing will not have the effect you hope it will, and will instead just make things worse"; and the reason that specific word is used is exactly because of the inherent irony.

(Just as important at the core is the concept of being offended on behalf of someone else they do not even know.)

I can kind of see how you would arrive at an interpretation like this if you tried to come up with a definition in good faith. But I do not think you can escape the fact that the pejorative use of the word was popularized by political pundits who do not have (or need) a consistent definition and care mostly about riling up their audience. As a result, to many people, it is vague and emotionally loaded. You can try to reclaim their language; I personally wouldn't, it is bound to lead to misunderstandings.

This is especially problematic with something like Twitter where someone who does not know you might not have any context beyond 280 characters. Frankly, if I read something like "Let me guess, they replaced it with a woke subject?" from some random Twitter user, my best guess would be that their handle is something like @ownthelibs03657164 and they are probably not worth interacting with (no offense to Dave). Mind you that is no excuse at all to go after them (or their contacts) personally.

[Zero999]

The absence of a belief is not a belief. 

True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.

No: agnosticism is saying "there might be a god, but I don't care if there is", whereas atheism is saying "I reject the idea of a god as described in most religious texts, because it is not falsifiable."

It's odd how things can change ones perception of whether there's a god or not. I used to be strongly atheist, but am now more spiritual/agnostic. I'm still no fan of organised religion, although Christianity is probably one of the least worst ones and is the foundation for many of the good things in western society. I wonder if it was being hit by a car doing 60mph, whist cycling last year, which has affected my brain? I wasn't that badly injured, considering, just a broken radius and ulnar requiring surgery and a mild pneumothorax.

[tszaboo]

On the other hand, systemic and institutional racism in USA affects blacks more than any other group, and whites are in a very privileged position in this regard. (Yes, there are many poor whites who are socioeconomically no better off, but they’re still infinitely less likely to experience systemic racism and the consequences and dangers that carries.)

Chef Goes Nanners

[EEVblog]

The (removed) **** out bits, was done by me.  I find it too offensive and crazy to include in the quote.

Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comics, has received a serious backlash for suggesting that you should **** **** own son if he is “a danger to himself and others”.

I'm not entirely clear, if they genuinely have this opinion, and can't see the flaws in it, and dangers of it being misunderstood and/or incorrectly applied, in the wider-population.  Who may not have the critical thinking skills, to be able to process stuff like that reliably and safely.

Alternatively, as at least one person in this thread, seems to have said, they have done it more to increase / boost their (presumably flagging) sales, rather than 100% believe in it.
In which case, I'd be disappointed in their business morals and morality in general.  As it could (in theory), cause serious and incorrect, activities, by others.  With terrible consequences.

I'm not defending his opinion or quote, I have not heard that before, but I would bet money it's taken out of context.
As I've said, if you don't listen to his live shows then you don't undrestand what he's doing and how he explains things. He likes to put hyptotheticals out there and discuss them and a whole bunch of other techniques. This makes him incredibly easy to be taken out of context.
Also, his son in law was killed by fentanyl, and he spends a huge amount of energy trying to end it politically. He's now a single issue voter, the candidate with the best fentanyl plan gets his vote and public promotion.
My advice with anything involving Scott Adams is to not believe a word of it until you have watched the full live show context. And even have many episodes under your belt so you can get what he's doing.

[tom66]

The absence of a belief is not a belief. 

True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.

No: agnosticism is saying "there might be a god, but I don't care if there is", whereas atheism is saying "I reject the idea of a god as described in most religious texts, because it is not falsifiable."

It's odd how things can change ones perception of whether there's a god or not. I used to be strongly atheist, but am now more spiritual/agnostic. I'm still no fan of organised religion, although Christianity is probably one of the least worst ones and is the foundation for many of the good things in western society. I wonder if it was being hit by a car doing 60mph, whist cycling last year, which has affected my brain? I wasn't that badly injured, considering, just a broken radius and ulnar requiring surgery and a mild pneumothorax.

To be clear, I've zero problem with anyone believing in whatever god, gods or spiritual entity that makes them happy and I respect their religion, or lack of religion.  Organised religion is also fine within reason, provided it doesn't begin to corrupt the state or force itself upon others (most religions fail this test unfortunately, but some are fine.)  I am just responding to the idea that atheism is a belief system.  It isn't a belief system any more than the laws of physics are a belief system.  It's the absence of belief.

[EEVblog]

The absence of a belief is not a belief. 

True, the absence of belief is agnosticism, atheism is the belief that there is no deity, not simply the lack of belief. At least that is the definition I have always heard.

That "belief" is based on not only the complete lack of evidence, but also the absurdity of the hundreds of contradictory religious beliefs.
Every athiest I know will change their mind in a second if you present some credible evidence.

[SiliconWizard]

The (removed) **** out bits, was done by me.  I find it too offensive and crazy to include in the quote.

Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comics, has received a serious backlash for suggesting that you should **** **** own son if he is “a danger to himself and others”.

I'm not entirely clear, if they genuinely have this opinion, and can't see the flaws in it, and dangers of it being misunderstood and/or incorrectly applied, in the wider-population.  Who may not have the critical thinking skills, to be able to process stuff like that reliably and safely.

Alternatively, as at least one person in this thread, seems to have said, they have done it more to increase / boost their (presumably flagging) sales, rather than 100% believe in it.
In which case, I'd be disappointed in their business morals and morality in general.  As it could (in theory), cause serious and incorrect, activities, by others.  With terrible consequences.

I'm not defending his opinion or quote, I have not heard that before, but I would bet money it's taken out of context.
As I've said, if you don't listen to his live shows then you don't undrestand what he's doing and how he explains things. He likes to put hyptotheticals out there and discuss them and a whole bunch of other techniques. This makes him incredibly easy to be taken out of context.

But who cares about context?
He has spoken bad keywords, so he shall be canceled.