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

[m k]

You can widen the cooking stylish approach.
No idea though what would be a good framing.
TEA is not an example.

[m k]

One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.
It's clearly justified by the size, a very little amount of total collective.
Obviously being private can't be it so not much else left.

Then totally accepted level of cancel is ignore.
So somewhere is a limit where acceptance changes.

Are we now around a peak of recoil of a no voice for minority.
My guess is no, there are still room for upping it.

Woke seems to be a continuity of tractor feminism where equal rights have turned to special privileges, no real personal examples here so just personal feelings then.
General USA can be different than my general reality, but maybe it has always been, more or less, fundamentalists vs. others, it really seems to be so from news feeds and popular history.
It's also clear that since USA can put sanctions around the globe it's pretty much vital that general local consumer audience is not going to change their view.
We'll see shortly what happens if/when Faux News has to deal with it.

But more importantly, Lineker is back.

[wilfred]

Edit: Maybe it's time to set aside a board for such discussion. Cooking scored one and this must be at least as deserving given the nerve it seems to have struck.

I repeat, the community here has voted down this idea multiple times over the years, the majority do not want a free-for-all section.

It wouldn't be a free for all section. It would be for topics like this one. Not strictly technical electronics chat but equally of interest to those interested in electronics. Just like cooking isn't a free for all section.

You'd be happy to not have trump and covid discussion in the general electronics section, those who want to avoid non electronics discussion would like it and those who like to stick to their knitting can frequent the knitting section.

You could even make it a permission based section for those who request admission to it and then you could keep it well confined to only those who are interested in such topics.

[EEVblog]

It wouldn't be a free for all section. It would be for topics like this one. Not strictly technical electronics chat but equally of interest to those interested in electronics. Just like cooking isn't a free for all section.

You'd be happy to not have trump and covid discussion in the general electronics section, those who want to avoid non electronics discussion would like it and those who like to stick to their knitting can frequent the knitting section.

You could even make it a permission based section for those who request admission to it and then you could keep it well confined to only those who are interested in such topics.

And it'll either turn into a free-for-all, or there are dozen reports every day because someone hurt someone's feelings. And then that animosity spreads into other areas of the forum.
People have voted no many times before, and it remains no.

[MK14]

Edit: Maybe it's time to set aside a board for such discussion. Cooking scored one and this must be at least as deserving given the nerve it seems to have struck.

I repeat, the community here has voted down this idea multiple times over the years, the majority do not want a free-for-all section.

It wouldn't be a free for all section. It would be for topics like this one. Not strictly technical electronics chat but equally of interest to those interested in electronics. Just like cooking isn't a free for all section.

You'd be happy to not have trump and covid discussion in the general electronics section, those who want to avoid non electronics discussion would like it and those who like to stick to their knitting can frequent the knitting section.

You could even make it a permission based section for those who request admission to it and then you could keep it well confined to only those who are interested in such topics.

One of the major reasons, is it is believed to cause (political discussions), potential major tensions between members.  Bad disagreements, which can spill over to the normal forum threads, and lead to dramatic increases in the need for mod/admin attention.

It can also attract, the wrong sort of members.  Who, rather than discussing Electronics and related subjects, come here with other agendas, and who may not be anything at all to do, with any technical subjects.

[wilfred]

One of the major reasons, is it is believed to cause (political discussions), potential major tensions between members.  Bad disagreements, which can spill over to the normal forum threads, and lead to dramatic increases in the need for mod/admin attention.

It can also attract, the wrong sort of members.  Who, rather than discussing Electronics and related subjects, come here with other agendas, and who may not be anything at all to do, with any technical subjects.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But the thread is on the forum now anyway. If the wrong sort of member can post in section A then they can post in section B. I don't see how the section the thread/topic resides in changes anything. Except that those who think it doesn't belong in a technical electronics section won't have anything to complain about.

[Nominal Animal]

One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.

I see the line of your thinking.

The way I see it, the core concept in the "cancellation" is what used to be called shunning.
Online, that requires some kind of banning.  Even at Twitter, when a specific person blocks you from following them, it is not called "cancelling", it's just blocking.

I can understand how this all might be considered a continuous spectrum of actions, though.  I personally believe there is a clear line when it includes demanding others to ignore the target too.  I find boycotting or ignoring the target yourself, and mentioning you do so without telling others to follow suit, acceptable.  Saying "I ignore them, because they're always wrong.  If you intend to interact with me, you will be ignoring them too." is going over the line to unacceptable, and saying "If you are a good human, you will ignore them" is blatantly evil.  Spectrum, yes, but with a very specific line that should not be crossed.

Others disagree, of course, and that is absolutely fine.  What matters is the reason behind the opinion, because we can evaluate those reasons, and see if they matter to ourselves.

In my case, the reason for placing that line right there is history and psychology.  As a political tool, it has never worked.  As a social tool, it compels specific behaviour.  I do not see either having any positive effects, but plenty of negative effects, in current peace-time Western societies.

I do not believe in ignoring someone just because of a silly/bad opinion, either.  I only ignore people when I feel I cannot interact with them in a mutually beneficial manner.  In social and psychological terms, ignoring someone is quite a negative act by itself; definitely not a neutral one that should be done on a whim.  As mentioned earlier in this thread, Dave even made a video about this, and how ignoring people willy-nilly is counterproductive.

But more importantly, Lineker is back.

Who?  Oh.  Not my cuppa tea.

Well, my opinion is that if his political views doesn't show up in his sports commentary, why should his politics affect his career?
Exactly like why should the political views of a cartoonist affect the publication of that cartoon, if those views do not show up in the cartoon.

One thing here that I absolutely love, is that I can argue about one thing in a given thread with some member or members, and in an unrelated thread interact with them positively without that other argument affecting it.  It is important to me.  It is useful, because even with the disagreement, we can still interact in a mutually positive manner.  And I do believe that if more people were capable of that, also in real life, it would help make the world a better place.

Of course, this is completely opposite to the current cancel culture in social media.

[MK14]

One of the major reasons, is it is believed to cause (political discussions), potential major tensions between members.  Bad disagreements, which can spill over to the normal forum threads, and lead to dramatic increases in the need for mod/admin attention.

It can also attract, the wrong sort of members.  Who, rather than discussing Electronics and related subjects, come here with other agendas, and who may not be anything at all to do, with any technical subjects.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. But the thread is on the forum now anyway. If the wrong sort of member can post in section A then they can post in section B. I don't see how the section the thread/topic resides in changes anything. Except that those who think it doesn't belong in a technical electronics section won't have anything to complain about.

Let's put it another way.  It can be done, and there are example(s), where other forums have done it.  But, they seem to (in my, limited experience of it), lay down very strict rules, and have lots and lots of moderators and administrators on hand, to deal with any difficulties.

But, we don't have lots of moderators / administrators here, and from what I've seen, the admin team, became or was already, very, very heavy handed, to keep it in touch (on other forum(s) ).

Despite all those things I just said.  Many of the posts (in the political section), are of rather poor quality (and I'm being nice, here).  I.e. Most or many of the posts, are noise.

Also, it does seem to attract, trolls and other types of rather annoying posters.

Part of the reason, it can work, on other forums.  Is because, if there are a large number of administrators and moderators.  There can be a big mixture of political leanings / opinions / knowledge, between them.  Which can allow them to more effectively, handle such things.

Also, at least one of those forums (probably others, as well), will (or can be perceived as doing) temporary-ban / vacation, members, for the tiniest / slightest of infractions. Which also, can create tensions.

[wilfred]

Let's put it another way.  It can be done, and there are example(s), where other forums have done it.  But, they seem to (in my, limited experience of it), lay down very strict rules, and have lots and lots of moderators and administrators on hand, to deal with any difficulties.

I perfectly understand what you're saying. But whatever moderation the thread needs it will need wherever it sits. As long as the same members can post in it. I'm just saying put non electronics topics in a special "of interest to engineers" section for non-electronics discussion. I don't want trump and covid and gender discussion period but moderating that out still needs to be done as Dave has had to request repeatedly in this topic. And those who don't want any of that even to the extent it would be of general interest to engineers in an "electronics" board will also be satisfied. The reason is really the same as the reason for putting Cooking outside the General Technical Chat. And don't forget the General Technical Chat" was once simply "General Chat" so there was a thought at one time to tighten down what is considered topical for this board. That's all I'm saying.

[Muttley Snickers]

The subject was last put to bed six months ago and the last poll had 88 against, 70 for it and 22 couldn't give a toss either way.   

I enjoy a good waffle as much as anyone but I don't think this is the place for it.    

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/important-poll-should-there-be-an-off-topic-section/

[MK14]

I perfectly understand what you're saying. But whatever moderation the thread needs it will need wherever it sits. As long as the same members can post in it. I'm just saying put non electronics topics in a special "of interest to engineers" section for non-electronics discussion. I don't want trump and covid and gender discussion period but moderating that out still needs to be done as Dave has had to request repeatedly in this topic. And those who don't want any of that even to the extent it would be of general interest to engineers in an "electronics" board will also be satisfied. The reason is really the same as the reason for putting Cooking outside the General Technical Chat. And don't forget the General Technical Chat" was once simply "General Chat" so there was a thought at one time to tighten down what is considered topical for this board. That's all I'm saying.

I'm happy for our opinions on the matter to differ.  I'm not 100% either way, myself.  But on overall balance, I think it would change this forum, for the worse.

[Tomorokoshi]

Including the original post:

Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.

Jesus Dave, just close the thread. It lost is purpose after the first few posts.

No it hasn't, it's a place to talk about Dilbert and Adams and what's happening, and cancel culture. As I said before, it potentially impacts all of us. Things could always evolve in the Dilbert universe, so best to keep it open.

Please define "cancel culture".

Please define "cancel culture".

If you have to ask that then I'd prefer that you not particiate in this thread. You are clearly not here to talk about Dilbert and Adams.

So Dave, here is the problem. You want to talk about Dilbert and Scott Adams. You do not want to talk about politics, Covid, etc. However, the term "cancel culture" is inherently political. So is "woke" for that matter. Both are tied up in the subject that shall not be talked about.

Now, if one were to review this outline:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4736891/#msg4736891

It would actually seem to be a framework, modified in any form you wish to avoid the subject that shall not be talked about, except that it also is an invitation to define "cancel culture", "woke", etc. The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules; put in engineering terms, you have a case of bus contention. Mismatched impedances. while(1).

There are very good reasons for asking for a definition, particularly with a contentious topic like... grounding. Diodes. Approvals. All of which can get expensively derailed when someone in, let's say, a project management role thinks they understand something, dictates the design because of schedule or budget reasons, and then encounters a continuing series of engineering and implementation problems because the fundamental concept was not understood.

As such I am still interested in a definition of "cancel culture" from you. And, being good engineering practice, a few more questions:
- Is "cancel culture" a politically-topical term?
- Is "woke" a politically-topical term?

[ebastler]

The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules [...]

That's the gist of it, in my view, and this is not the first thread where that happens. The related forum rule should be amended to something like: "Discussions of politics are allowed if, and only if, the topic is close to Dave's heart."

For the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion thread, one could at least argue that it was workplace-related. For this thread, "it may affect all of us" is the only justification I have read from Dave as to why this topic would qualify for a technical forum. Spoiler alert: That justification would apply to any political topic.

If this is how Dave wants to run the forum, that's up to him of course. But I would suggest amending the rules as suggested above to stay honest. The rule as it stands does not seem to reflect reality:

There are a couple of pet topics that always get out of control on forums, namely, religion, politics, guns, war, conspiracy theories, and the latest Current Thing that's happening or being championed by the public. They are not welcome here.

[TimFox]

Back to Dilbert itself:
At the end of the previous millennium, there was a short-lived (two seasons) animated version of Dilbert on US television.
I noticed that it was actually more bitter than the newspaper version at that time.
Nevertheless, my favorite was the ninth episode of the first series, on the topic of Y2K, as Dilbert's workplace faces the problem of an obsolescent IT system.
It traced the problem back to 1975, when Wally was a fresh young engineer, not yet broken.
When he started there, the senior staff showed him around and pointed out that they used two places to indicate the year (i.e. "87", not "1987").
He asked, "won't that be a problem in 25 years?", to which the staff laughed.

[tooki]

The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules [...]

That's the gist of it, in my view, and this is not the first thread where that happens. The related forum rule should be amended to something like: "Discussions of politics are allowed if, and only if, the topic is close to Dave's heart."

For the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion thread, one could at least argue that it was workplace-related. For this thread, "it may affect all of us" is the only justification I have read from Dave as to why this topic would qualify for a technical forum. Spoiler alert: That justification would apply to any political topic.

If this is how Dave wants to run the forum, that's up to him of course. But I would suggest amending the rules as suggested above to stay honest. The rule as it stands does not seem to reflect reality:

There are a couple of pet topics that always get out of control on forums, namely, religion, politics, guns, war, conspiracy theories, and the latest Current Thing that's happening or being championed by the public. They are not welcome here.

I’m glad you said all of the above. It’s exactly how I feel, but I was afraid to say it, lest it just look like whining from someone who he’d already told off in this thread.

I, too, am perplexed at the “discuss ‘cancel culture’ and ‘wokeness’ without discussing politics” decree, as they’re completely political terms (at least nowadays, if there even was ever a time when they weren’t). It’s as preposterous as saying “discuss racism without mentioning race”.


As for solutions: 20 years ago, I was a mod/admin of a large Mac forum that at the time had similar active membership as this one. We tried keeping politics out and it just didn’t work. The solution we came upon was to create a “political lounge” where special (looser) rules were in effect. It was spectacularly effective at being a lightning rod for the political discussion. It allowed us to easily keep the entire rest of the forum politics-free. I literally never looked at the political lounge (I was younger and had zero interest in politics at the time) and could focus on the subforums that covered my areas of expertise.

I use the past tense but that forum actually still exists, though traffic has dwindled to almost zero.

[james_s]

One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.
It's clearly justified by the size, a very little amount of total collective.
Obviously being private can't be it so not much else left.

I don't like community moderation either, it tends to turn things into a toxic cesspool and echo chamber. I much prefer to have a handful of moderators that at least try to be balanced.

[james_s]

It would actually seem to be a framework, modified in any form you wish to avoid the subject that shall not be talked about, except that it also is an invitation to define "cancel culture", "woke", etc. The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules; put in engineering terms, you have a case of bus contention. Mismatched impedances. while(1).

Well the alternative would be to lock the whole thread, which I suppose may be your goal? Personally I don't see why people that are not interested in the thread don't just exit and ignore it? Nothing exists in a vacuum and to some degree it is impossible to completely and totally separate politics from everything else. Corporate politics are a real thing we all have to deal with, politics are everywhere.

Dave can do whatever he wants, it has been stated in the past this is his sandbox and it isn't a democracy.

[Buriedcode]

The more times a theory holds up to being tested, the more confident we can be that the theory is truth, but it's never really 100% proven. Science encourages continuous testing and questioning of everything, and occasionally things long believed to be true turn out to be incorrect.

Just to add, often people will constantly raise the bar for "proof" if they don't believe in a finding, or lower the bar to ridiculousness if they want something to be true.  Because you cannot really prove a negative, cognitive bias skews peoples views on what constitutes evidence so if a study is negative - it just wasn't precise enough, or wasn't large enough.  If its positive - no matter how small or poorly designed - it must prove my theory right!   Case in point the whole silly hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin debacle - where people are still quoting obviously fake studies.

Face masks are another one. The evidence now points in the direction they're completely ineffective, yet many still hold onto bad studies which state otherwise. Heck I was one of those who thought they were effective, yet my opinion has changed, in light of new evidence.

The evidence doesn't point in that direction at all.  Sources?

[MK14]

The evidence doesn't point in that direction at all.  Sources?

Just a friendly reminder, as to what has previously been said:

Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.

[SeanB]

And it'll either turn into a free-for-all, or there are dozen reports every day because someone hurt someone's feelings. And then that animosity spreads into other areas of the forum.
People have voted no many times before, and it remains no.

Isn't that why Reddit exists though, so best to do there, though currently looks like some snowflake is doing a DDOS on it currently.

[fourfathom]

The solution we came upon was to create a “political lounge” where special (looser) rules were in effect. It was spectacularly effective at being a lightning rod for the political discussion.

This is what was done on the "Sailing Anarchy" forum where I occasionally hang out.  "Political Anarchy" is generally considered to be a toxic waste dump, but there are actually serious and interesting discussions going on there, and the sub-forum keeps most of the crap out of the sailing-related forums.  If someone gets too political and nasty we just tell them "Take it to PA" (Political Anarchy) and that usually works.

But I'm happy with the arrangement here.  Just don't follow the discussion if it holds no interest for you.

And Cancel Culture is a thing.  It seems to be an extension of the unhinged over-reactions that are so common now.  I'm not likely to find myself "cancelled", but I do avoid voicing my opinion where doing so would be like stirring up a hornet's nest.  We used to be able to have a civil discussion among friends, but that has become increasingly difficult.  The hornets anger so easily now...

[tooki]

It would actually seem to be a framework, modified in any form you wish to avoid the subject that shall not be talked about, except that it also is an invitation to define "cancel culture", "woke", etc. The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules; put in engineering terms, you have a case of bus contention. Mismatched impedances. while(1).

Well the alternative would be to lock the whole thread, which I suppose may be your goal? Personally I don't see why people that are not interested in the thread don't just exit and ignore it? Nothing exists in a vacuum and to some degree it is impossible to completely and totally separate politics from everything else. Corporate politics are a real thing we all have to deal with, politics are everywhere.

Dave can do whatever he wants, it has been stated in the past this is his sandbox and it isn't a democracy.

Either enforce the rule as written (which would be to stop it), or leave it open and allow both sides to express their opinions. What isn't acceptable is the status quo, which is to harshly castigate those few of us who disagree with his opinion but turn a blind eye to (or at minimum, be more lenient with) those who agree with his opinion.

[james_s]

Both sides have expressed their opinions, what more is there to express? Some people acknowledge that "cancel culture" is a real thing and a problematic trend where people are bullied into silence, even if all they are doing is questioning a prevailing narrative or wanting to discuss other ideas, not necessarily even attacking anyone. The other side seems to be people that either flatly deny this is even happening at all, or they try to justify the bullying. All of these things have been brought up and discussed, and as long as it hasn't gone off onto other political tangents such as socialism, communism, specific politicians, covid, etc it has been tolerated. I don't think it's that hard to discuss a concept like cancel culture as it applies to the Scott Adams saga and other aspects of engineering without drifting off into general politics. There have been a few eye openers here, such as the guy that claimed questioning something is the same as advocating for it, a truly bizarre (in my mind) logical conclusion that could explain some of the reactions that occur in the world these days.

The way I look at it, allowing threads like this to exist at all involves bending the rules, and I appreciate that it has been allowed in moderation because the topic is interesting and relevant, but it has to remain civil, and it's nice that it's contained in one or two threads which are easily avoided for those not interested. It would totally ruin the forum if it spread everywhere and took over.

[ebastler]

There have been a few eye openers here, such as the guy that claimed questioning something is the same as advocating for it, a truly bizarre (in my mind) logical conclusion that could explain some of the reactions that occur in the world these days.

Are you doing this for manipulative purpose or due to a cognitive limitation?

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

[james_s]

There have been a few eye openers here, such as the guy that claimed questioning something is the same as advocating for it, a truly bizarre (in my mind) logical conclusion that could explain some of the reactions that occur in the world these days.

Are you doing this for manipulative purpose or due to a cognitive limitation?

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

Doing what? Remembering the specific line incorrectly and leaving out the word "law"? Does that really matter?

Cognitive limitation? Why not just skip the euphemism and say what you mean, which is that you think I'm stupid?

"Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X" is a truly bizarre logical conclusion in my mind, correcting the quote doesn't really change what I said at all. I was genuinely surprised to learn that an otherwise apparently rational person thinks this way.