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

[jasonRF]

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.

Yup.  These kinds of threads should be few and far between, if allowed at all.  I used to be fairly active on physicsforums and their strict ban on politics and religion was always appreciated.  There are a lot of other forums you can go to if you want to argue about that stuff. 

jason

[EEVblog]

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.

Yup.  These kinds of threads should be few and far between, if allowed at all.  I used to be fairly active on physicsforums and their strict ban on politics and religion was always appreciated.  There are a lot of other forums you can go to if you want to argue about that stuff. 

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 

[PlainName]

Doesn't the number of different contributors show that there is still interest in whatever this thread is about. It's not like it's just two people arguing the toss. So perhaps better to leave this one running to contain whatever it is here than have it drift into other threads? So long as it's all even-tempered, what's the problem?

We get that you're bored of it now but you can always drop out, you know. There's an ignore thread feature to make it easy! I'm sure someone will let you know if ever your moderation skills were required to kill it off.

[james_s]

It seems right wing to me, because I've seen similar populist ideas by conservatives and right wing politicians over here. Typically blaming the state, state media, education etc of being too liberal or "leftist". I don't have an explanation for that connection, because I didn't make such a connection. I didn't know that anyone did such a connection to begin with.

I don't think the arrest warrant on Putin is useless. Maybe for the US, because the US haven't recognized the ICC, but 123 other countries have. So at least it has an important symbolic meaning. The ICC has judged several important cases and put war criminals in prison. I don't know if that will ever happen to Putin, but now at least Russia appeasers in Europe will have a harder time licking Putin's *ss, so to speak. It will be much harder to shake his hand without moving to some Arab country afterwards (yes, there are already examples of politicians who did this when Russia started their full scale invasion).

I've seen populists drink water, I also drink water, does that make me populist? If a group you don't like comes up with an idea that doesn't mean the idea is wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's worth exploring. If you think that idea is wrong then please offer an alternate theory, if nobody ever discusses it further than "that's nuttery" then it will never be solved.

Symbolic meaning is useless, it does nothing except making some people feel good like they are doing something. I take no issue with somebody arresting Putin, but I just don't see how that warrant is going to lead to that. I'd never heard of ICC until today, it doesn't seem they have much in the way of teeth.

[vk6zgo]

It seems right wing to me, because I've seen similar populist ideas by conservatives and right wing politicians over here. Typically blaming the state, state media, education etc of being too liberal or "leftist". I don't have an explanation for that connection, because I didn't make such a connection. I didn't know that anyone did such a connection to begin with.

I don't think the arrest warrant on Putin is useless. Maybe for the US, because the US haven't recognized the ICC, but 123 other countries have. So at least it has an important symbolic meaning. The ICC has judged several important cases and put war criminals in prison. I don't know if that will ever happen to Putin, but now at least Russia appeasers in Europe will have a harder time licking Putin's *ss, so to speak. It will be much harder to shake his hand without moving to some Arab country afterwards (yes, there are already examples of politicians who did this when Russia started their full scale invasion).

I've seen populists drink water, I also drink water, does that make me populist? If a group you don't like comes up with an idea that doesn't mean the idea is wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's worth exploring. If you think that idea is wrong then please offer an alternate theory, if nobody ever discusses it further than "that's nuttery" then it will never be solved.

Symbolic meaning is useless, it does nothing except making some people feel good like they are doing something. I take no issue with somebody arresting Putin, but I just don't see how that warrant is going to lead to that. I'd never heard of ICC until today, it doesn't seem they have much in the way of teeth.

You say "symbolic meaning is useless", & yet in the USA, people regularly "salute the flag".
They don't, unless they are a bit unhinged, revere a piece of cloth---it is a symbol.

Australians & New Zealanders commemorate Anzac Day every year, but logically, it is just another day of the year.

King Charles III will be crowned in Winchester Abbey, with all the pomp & ceremony that entails---why? he is already King; it doesn't make him any more so.

All just "symbolic meaning".

[EEVblog]

Ok, any more Putin posts get deleted.
Please stick to the topic.

[james_s]

You say "symbolic meaning is useless", & yet in the USA, people regularly "salute the flag".
They don't, unless they are a bit unhinged, revere a piece of cloth---it is a symbol.

Australians & New Zealanders commemorate Anzac Day every year, but logically, it is just another day of the year.

King Charles III will be crowned in Winchester Abbey, with all the pomp & ceremony that entails---why? he is already King; it doesn't make him any more so.

All just "symbolic meaning".

I don't do any of those things, as you say, all just symbolic meaning, all useless. Symbolism is an emotional thing, it accomplishes nothing, I've never seen any need for it.

[wilfred]

Doesn't the number of different contributors show that there is still interest in whatever this thread is about. It's not like it's just two people arguing the toss. So perhaps better to leave this one running to contain whatever it is here than have it drift into other threads? So long as it's all even-tempered, what's the problem?

We get that you're bored of it now but you can always drop out, you know. There's an ignore thread feature to make it easy! I'm sure someone will let you know if ever your moderation skills were required to kill it off.

Years ago, maybe 5-6, I did a bit of analysis of threads like this one. It seemed to me that even though they were getting lots of activity they were not posted in a lot by many different members. I don't have the script anymore to do this one but if memory serves the top 10 most active posters would generate over 50% and Dave himself could easily hold down number one spot. And as the thread went on the number of different posters declined quite rapidly.

I'm not inclined anymore to see if things have changed. The names have mostly changed. I used to use the ignore topics facility but I'll have to go check if any entries remain.

But as for leaving it running, I do agree with you on that point. So if you were posting in response to someone who called for the thread to be closed, it needs to be understood that as long as Dave enjoys these threads they have long been, and will continue, to be a feature on the forum.

[vk6zgo]

Ok, any more Putin posts get deleted.
Please stick to the topic.

Dave, the original topic is pretty much exhausted.

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.

[MK14]

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 

As ChatGPT improves, it might (N.B. May not work reliably enough in practice and/or have other difficulties) be possible to write an API, which detects political posts.  Hence blocks them, before they enter a thread and/or holds them pending, until a moderator/administrator approves them.  If the user insists it is NOT political.

N.B. Only needs enabling, for problematic threads, such as this one, not for ALL threads.

Test question:

Is the following post, political at all? "...actual post - pasted in here..."

Source1:  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4763093/#msg4763093

ChatGPT response to the first test:

The post contains some political elements, specifically discussing populism, the arrest of Putin, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the overall tone and content of the post do not seem to be overtly political. The author is encouraging discussion and exploration of ideas, rather than advocating for a specific political agenda. The post seems to focus more on logical reasoning and critical thinking than on partisan politics.

Source2:  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/newspapers-publishers-distributor-and-possibly-its-website-racist-remarks/msg4762712/#msg4762712

ChatGPT response to the second test:

The post appears to be political in nature, as it discusses education policies, curriculum changes, and social issues, such as inclusivity and cancel culture. It also makes references to Marxist-Leninist ideology and cultural relativism, which are political ideologies. Additionally, it mentions the overrepresentation of immigrants in sex crimes and street gangs, which can be a sensitive and politicized topic.

[Nominal Animal]

All of your explanations for this alleged connection look like right-wing nuttery to me.

Right-wing nuttery?  Right-wing I can accept, but "nuttery"?  Point at least one specific thing in my posts that is "nutty".  Or is everybody who disagrees with you a "nut"?

I couldn't care less about conservative conspiracy theories right now.

Conspiracy theory?  Really?   Point out a single conspiracy I've alleged here, please.  Otherwise, you are a liar and owe me an apology.

You don't get to call me names just because you feel like it, after I've treated you as an equal, and spent a lot of time and effort to try and explain the basis for my current understanding.  You disagree, and that's fine; but just discard all that as "right-wing nuttery" and "conservative conspiracy theory" is absolutely disgusting, and utterly intellectually dishonest.

Your behaviour shows the same problem we've discussed all along in this thread, about cancel culture: honest debate is dead, dissenting opinions and explanations labeled as "right-wing nuttery" and "conservative conspiracy theories", and therefore not worth anyones time, and should be eradicated.  Only Socially Correct Thoughts shall be expressed.  People must stay silent, or they too will be labeled "nutters" and "conspiracy theorists" by the likes of you, all for having a different opinion, even when they try to carefully explain how they have constructed their current understanding.  You even refuse to look at those references!  How dare you!?

And even now, I do not want you banned or silenced.  I only want your lies corrected and acknowledged, and an apology for the uncalled-for name-calling.

[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.
Adam's has said reapeatedly he has achived what he wanted to achieve, is not looking back, and thinks he's made genuine progress in race relations.
He admits he just didn't expect to lose the syndication, but has also said he understand why they were fearful and dropped him, and does not blame them.

The big question is now, do you fork out US$7/month for Dilbert or not...

[wilfred]

Ok, any more Putin posts get deleted.
Please stick to the topic.

Dave, the original topic is pretty much exhausted.

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.

He's not a victim. He has said fairly directly that he isn't complaining and he got exactly what he wanted. I've said that before and showed a link to where he said it. I had a circuitous story that happened in the supermarket yesterday about why something appears on the shelf and then gets "reduced to clear". The upshot of it after all the superficial BS reasons is money. Right at the heart of it at the bottom line it comes down to money.

It is the same with Scott Adams. He calculated the risk and decided it would be more lucrative to move to a subscription based model where he was in complete control. I watched a few of his videos on YT and it became clear to me at least how he rambles on about something, then confesses to not know the answer, then makes a leap of logic and says "am I right" or something like "maybe you know, post it in the comments". It seems to be a sort of technique to manipulate his audience who probably sort of agree with him but don't quite know why. I imagine it is the same sort of thing Fox News commentators do to hold an audience that mostly just enjoys being part of something bigger than themselves that they know they're angry about. As long as they're amongst other angry people they don't need to strain themselves with understanding exactly why.

Scott Adams is clearly not an idiot, I never thought the Fox News anchors actually believed the lies they were spouting on air. And I don't count myself as the sharpest tool in the toolbox but Scott Adams clearly thinks his audience is duller than even I am.

In both cases it comes down to money.

[EEVblog]

It is the same with Scott Adams. He calculated the risk and decided it would be more lucrative to move to a subscription based model where he was in complete control.

Not so. He has said repeatedly that he did not expect his syndication company to drop him (that lead to an 80% drop in his income). He just expected some more newspapers to cancel his strip as they have done 3-4 times now in the last year when he has said something provocative.

Now that that's happened, he decided to go with only having Dilbert on Locals, but that was never a plan.

[Nominal Animal]

Please stick to the topic.

Once again, Dave, I seem to have been a part of the derailment.

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.

[vk6zgo]

Please stick to the topic.

Once again, Dave, I seem to have been a part of the derailment.

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.

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.

[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?

[Nominal Animal]

When they maintain their disagreement, you accuse them of cancelling you.

Eh, what?  Accusing me of "right-wing nuttery" and "conservative conspiracy stories" after explicitly refusing to look at the documentation I linked to as a basis for my current understanding is "maintaining their disagreement" to you? 

And where did I accuse anyone of cancelling me?

You [...] try to batter people into agreement with you.

No.  I try to "batter them" to explain the basis of their opinion, because opinions themselves have zero value to me, only the reasons those opinions and understanding is based on has.  If they cannot or do not want to explain why they hold that opinion, why should anyone care about the opinion at all?
It's like plop, here's mine.  Take it or leave it.
No exchange of information, no interaction, nothing of value.

I for sure am not interested in any kind of "discussion" where people drop off their opinions as if they were nuggets of gold.  Opinions are turds.  Especially so when adopted wholesale from an authority without understanding exactly why one should hold that opinion; then it is just negative-worth parroting.
What is interesting and useful, is the reasoning and experiences that shaped those opinions and understanding.  Those can be compared, analyzed, and even weighed against ones own experiences and understanding, to quantify their relevance to oneself.  Any opinion I hold now, will –– and must, if I consider myself a rational being! –– change, as my understanding changes and acquire additional experience.

If pushing people to explain the basis of their opinions and understanding is "battering them", then so be it.  I guess I am doing it right now, am I?

[vk6zgo]

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.

[PlainName]

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.

[Nominal Animal]

Quoting him directly:

In #504 I wrote "Anyone speaking against the "progressivist activist group", is a transphobic racist X, regardless of the actual topic.".
And, like clockwork, JohanH starts blathering about "conservative conspiracy theories" and X and Trump and so on, proving my point perfectly –– and derailing the thread.  Probably hoped to get the thread locked, too.

Then, I re-referred to that name-calling as an effective tactic to get people to stay silent.  This is not cancelling, just another aspect of the same worldview.  Even when they know they cannot cancel someone, they can still label and call others names, bullying others so they'll stop talking out of disgust, not any kind of fear.  The need to stop other people from speaking, and yet others from listening, to the Bad Ideas must be strong indeed.

Why are you so keen to stop this discussion?  Has some of the posts made you think, and you find the cognitive dissonance brewing in yourself so uncomfortable, you feel an overriding need to badger Dave repeatedly hoping he'll close the thread, hopefully quelling those bad thoughts in yourself?

It is so weird how proponents of the cancel culture are so willing to police others, but refuse to control their own impulses.

[JohanH]

It is so weird how proponents of the cancel culture are so willing to police others, but refuse to control their own impulses.

Keep touting this nonsense. "Declining PISA scores caused by cancel culture" - I put this in the same category as "wind turbines cause cancer". Until there is some scientific proof. Then it MIGHT be worth to take a look at if it really causes trouble in the society. Now I'm supposedly part of the cancel mob because someone's frail feelings got hurt. Sure.

[vk6zgo]

Quoting him directly:

In #504 I wrote "Anyone speaking against the "progressivist activist group", is a transphobic racist X, regardless of the actual topic.".
And, like clockwork, JohanH starts blathering about "conservative conspiracy theories" and X and Trump and so on, proving my point perfectly –– and derailing the thread.  Probably hoped to get the thread locked, too.

Then, I re-referred to that name-calling as an effective tactic to get people to stay silent.  This is not cancelling, just another aspect of the same worldview.  Even when they know they cannot cancel someone, they can still label and call others names,

Meanwhile, you seem to be just as happy to throw names around.
Is it just you who shouldn't receive them?

 bullying others so they'll stop talking out of disgust,

Well it has certainly worked in my case, as I have decided to not post again in this thread

not any kind of fear.  The need to stop other people from speaking, and yet others from listening, to the Bad Ideas must be strong indeed.

Why are you so keen to stop this discussion?  Has some of the posts made you think, and you find the cognitive dissonance brewing in yourself so uncomfortable, you feel an overriding need to badger Dave repeatedly hoping he'll close the thread, hopefully quelling those bad thoughts in yourself?

It is so weird how proponents of the cancel culture are so willing to police others, but refuse to control their own impulses.

I am not a "proponent of the cancel culture", nor am I "badgering Dave repeatedly" in the hope of anything. He will make the choice to close it or leave it open.

[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.

[JohanH]

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. 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.