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

[tggzzz]

a daily 1hr live show and it contains daily news analysis, advice, updates on Dilbert and him etc
If you want short text, try following hm on Twitter.

If anyone wants to know what to think you can watch him free on Youtube. His channel is "Real Coffee with Scott Adams"

His last two days posts are
1:29:35 Episode 2105 Scott Adams: Trump Does CNN (Wow), Biden Crime Family Fallout, AI Rollout Coincidences
1:12:45 Episode 2104 Scott Adams: Biden Criminal Enterprise Outed, Trump Proves Justice System Isn't, More
1:16:34 pisode 2103 Scott Adams: Title 42 Ends, eVerify Debate, RFK Jr., HCQ And CIA Killing Kennedy, More
...so almost 2 hours per day.

He's got too much time on his hands.
Anybody that listens to that "stream of consciousness" has too much time on their hands.
Hence:

• classic yootoob waste of time
• miserable people wallowing in their own grievances, rather than enjoying life

The channel description is
"Scott Adams (famous for creating Dilbert) is a trained hypnotist, and is widely recognized as an expert on persuasion. Adams has emerged as one of the most influential observers of politics in the United States. His bestselling book, "Win Bigly," teaches persuasion, and his bestselling book "How to Lose Almost Every Time and Still Win Big" is widely considered the best book ever written on developing systems for success. His most recent book is Loserthink, which teaches you how to avoid it. If you enjoy learning how to be more effective in life while catching up with the interesting news, this is the channel for you."

"If you've got to say you're a lady, then you ain't".
"Power is like being a lady... if you have to tell people you are, you aren't".
s/power/persuasive/
s/lady/expert/

[ebastler]

Please, just make sure that you don't follow the Scott Adams trajectory in other respects: Once liked for a unique take on the office landscape, or electronics as the case may be. Then becoming increasingly convinced that he needs to (and has the calibre to) fix the world. I found that embarrassing and annoying to watch.

What's wrong with wanting to help people and/or shape the world? Sounds more like you are maybe a tad jelous because you don't have the skills or influence to do that perhaps?

Oh man... Why would I be jealous? I have never even tried to be an "influencer" on any scale and any medium, let alone make money from it, and I have no appetite for it.

You, on the other hand, have written three posts to respond to one of mine, and have included personal slights in each of them. That feels like a nerve got touched.

So, do you have the ambition to share your own views on politics and policies with the world? I have not come across this in videos yet (but watch them somewhat selectively). I have certainly seen it on the forum, and would prefer not to see it in your EEVblog videos. So the "please don't follow Adams' lead in your video channels" was a sincere request.

[EEVblog]

His last two days posts are
1:29:35 Episode 2105 Scott Adams: Trump Does CNN (Wow), Biden Crime Family Fallout, AI Rollout Coincidences
1:12:45 Episode 2104 Scott Adams: Biden Criminal Enterprise Outed, Trump Proves Justice System Isn't, More
1:16:34 pisode 2103 Scott Adams: Title 42 Ends, eVerify Debate, RFK Jr., HCQ And CIA Killing Kennedy, More
...so almost 2 hours per day.

He's got too much time on his hands.

He enjoys doing it, isn't that enough?, what's your problem? Why berate someone for doing something they enjoy? He obviously doesn't need the money.
Those topics are literally what's in the news those days. He analyses the news, that's what he does.

And this might be a tad embaressing for you to find out, but he has said that doing these live streams literally saved his life.
He was on blood pressure medication, one of the side effects being that it made him suidical. Throw in a divorce, losing his step son due to drugs, and things weren't that great for him.
But he said that getting up every day and doing this live show was the thing that kept him going.

[EEVblog]

So, do you have the ambition to share your own views on politics and policies with the world? I have not come across this in videos yet (but watch them somewhat selectively). I have certainly seen it on the forum, and would prefer not to see it in your EEVblog videos. So the "please don't follow Adams' lead in your video channels" was a sincere request.

I've done poltics once or twice in my videos way back in the old days. Never since, it's not the place for it, obviously.
Follow me in Twitter if you want my political takes, I do them fairly often. I've even been "cancelled" for them.

[tggzzz]

His last two days posts are
1:29:35 Episode 2105 Scott Adams: Trump Does CNN (Wow), Biden Crime Family Fallout, AI Rollout Coincidences
1:12:45 Episode 2104 Scott Adams: Biden Criminal Enterprise Outed, Trump Proves Justice System Isn't, More
1:16:34 pisode 2103 Scott Adams: Title 42 Ends, eVerify Debate, RFK Jr., HCQ And CIA Killing Kennedy, More
...so almost 2 hours per day.

He's got too much time on his hands.

He enjoys doing it, isn't that enough?, what's your problem? Why berate someone for doing something they enjoy? He obviously doesn't need the money.
Those topics are literally what's in the news those days. He analyses the news, that's what he does.

And this might be a tad embaressing for you to find out, but he has said that doing these live streams literally saved his life.
He was on blood pressure medication, one of the side effects being that it made him suidical. Throw in a divorce, losing his step son due to drugs, and things weren't that great for him.
But he said that getting up every day and doing this live show was the thing that kept him going.

I feel sorry for anyone that has had such problems. I am glad he has found a technique to deal with those problems.  But I too have had problems to deal with - and so have most people; it is part of life.

While those problems may be the reason, it is neither a sufficient excuse nor a sufficient justification for publically

• using his audience as part of his therapy
• encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse

[EEVblog]

While those problems may be the reason, it is neither a sufficient excuse nor a sufficient justification for publically

• using his audience as part of his therapy
• encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse

FFS, what is wrong with you?
He's not allowed to hold views you don't like?
People aren't allowed to choose to listen to or agree with those views? People aren't allowed to get value form his live shows? Or, as discussed, listen to him for other reasons and ignore stuff they don't agree with or like?
Perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to have access to a Youtube channel or a Twitter account in your view? Perhaps his "cancellation" didn't go far enough in your view?

[tggzzz]

While those problems may be the reason, it is neither a sufficient excuse nor a sufficient justification for publically

• using his audience as part of his therapy
• encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse

FFS, what is wrong with you?
He's not allowed to hold views you don't like?
People aren't allowed to choose to listen to or agree with those views? People aren't allowed to get value form his live shows? Or, as discussed, listen to him for other reasons and ignore stuff they don't agree with or like?
Perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to have access to a Youtube channel or a Twitter account in your view? Perhaps his "cancellation" didn't go far enough in your view?

Strawman arguments. See the emphasised part in my statement.

Many people (and possibly the majority) have had similar and far far worse problems in their life without feeling the need to conduct their therapy in public nor with expounding far left/right politics.

Discussing problems with trained therapists is a better option for all concerned than discussing them with random strangers. At the very least a trained therapist should be able to encourage someone to look inwards, and discourage them from (conveniently) blaming others.

The "echo chamber" effects of unsocial media are causing more and more problems in society, e.g. Andrew Tate influencing many impressionable teenage boys (of any age!) with his misogynist attitudes.

Apart from that, of course he should be able to espouse such views - and I should be able to note that I find the way he delivers the views is poor and is akin to "letters written in green ink". (Yes, back in the 80s I saw several such letters written to VCs, and shared their amusement).

[PlainName]

While those problems may be the reason, it is neither a sufficient excuse nor a sufficient justification for publically

• using his audience as part of his therapy
• encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse

FFS, what is wrong with you?
He's not allowed to hold views you don't like?
People aren't allowed to choose to listen to or agree with those views? People aren't allowed to get value form his live shows? Or, as discussed, listen to him for other reasons and ignore stuff they don't agree with or like?
Perhaps he shouldn't be allowed to have access to a Youtube channel or a Twitter account in your view? Perhaps his "cancellation" didn't go far enough in your view?

Nah, none of that. Mr Adams probably doesn't use quotes in an approved fashion.

[EEVblog]

Strawman arguments. See the emphasised part in my statement.
Many people (and possibly the majority) have had similar and far far worse problems in their life without feeling the need to conduct their therapy in public

He did NOT do that. He off-handed mentioned it once. Few people would actually know unless you happened to catch a small part of that one episode where he admitted it. It's not like he came out every morning and pleaded for everyone to stay and listen to him otherwise he'd kill himself. Nothing like that ever happened. His show is not a therapy session.
No different to people who find value in their daily work or family life that keeps them going, while secretely having problems.

Apart from that, of course he should be able to espouse such views - and I should be able to note that I find the way he delivers the views is poor and is akin to "letters written in green ink". (Yes, back in the 80s I saw several such letters written to VCs, and shared their amusement).

That's no the way you are coming across, not at all.

nor with expounding far left/right politics.

Bugger off. Again, you are practically saying that something is wrong with him by enjoying having a live youtube show talking about daily politics. He clearly enjoys doing his show, he likes talking about and analysing this stuff, why shouldn't he do it?

[james_s]

• encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse

What views can any person have that many don't regard as being incorrect, divisive  and worse?

It doesn't matter what your views are on anything, somebody somewhere is going to think they're wrong, divisive and downright offensive. This used to be ok and we would just agree to disagree with those people. The world was a better place when people were able to do that.

[coppice]

• encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse

What views can any person have that many don't regard as being incorrect, divisive  and worse?

It doesn't matter what your views are on anything, somebody somewhere is going to think they're wrong, divisive and downright offensive. This used to be ok and we would just agree to disagree with those people. The world was a better place when people were able to do that.

The most divisive thing of all is suppressing the views of others. You have to be of the most brutally authoritarian and oppressive nature to think you absolutely know what is correct, at least outside a STEM discipline.

[.RC.]

It doesn't matter what your views are on anything, somebody somewhere is going to think they're wrong, divisive and downright offensive. This used to be ok and we would just agree to disagree with those people. The world was a better place when people were able to do that.

I am sorry my good man but room 101 for you.   You obviously missed your copy of the 23'rd edition of the newspeak dictionary.

Diversity noun  Where the freedom of expression and ideas are encouraged, provided they are all the one and the same with government, and approved corporate and entities.

Edit:  Oh hell I just buggered up, I said "man", I should have said <insert non-gendered term for human here>.   I will take myself to room 101.

[tggzzz]

Strawman arguments. See the emphasised part in my statement.
Many people (and possibly the majority) have had similar and far far worse problems in their life without feeling the need to conduct their therapy in public

He did NOT do that. He off-handed mentioned it once. Few people would actually know unless you happened to catch a small part of that one episode where he admitted it. It's not like he came out every morning and pleaded for everyone to stay and listen to him otherwise he'd kill himself. Nothing like that ever happened. His show is not a therapy session.

Not following Adams' personal life, all I have to go on is your statement...

And this might be a tad embaressing for you to find out, but he has said that doing these live streams literally saved his life.
He was on blood pressure medication, one of the side effects being that it made him suidical. Throw in a divorce, losing his step son due to drugs, and things weren't that great for him.
But he said that getting up every day and doing this live show was the thing that kept him going.

That sounds like therapy for him which has "kept him going" and has (I'm glad to hear) "literally saved his life".

No different to people who find value in their daily work or family life that keeps them going, while secretely having problems.

True - as I noted many people find themselves in equivalent situations. But most people aren't self-proclaimed "expert on persuasion" and "influential observer", and don't broadcast their streams of consciousness.

Yes, being a "self-proclaimed" X is an orange flag. Ditto proclaiming yourself powerful or a lady.

Apart from that, of course he should be able to espouse such views - and I should be able to note that I find the way he delivers the views is poor and is akin to "letters written in green ink". (Yes, back in the 80s I saw several such letters written to VCs, and shared their amusement).

That's no the way you are coming across, not at all.

nor with expounding far left/right politics.

Bugger off. Again, you are practically saying that something is wrong with him by enjoying having a live youtube show talking about daily politics. He clearly enjoys doing his show, he likes talking about and analysing this stuff, why shouldn't he do it?

No, I'm not saying that. I am noting that, to me, his delivery style is akin to "letters written in green ink".

Are you saying I shouldn't hold that view, and/or that I should spend a couple of hours a day doing the equivalent of reading letters written in green ink?

[tggzzz]

• encouraging people to have views that many regard as being incorrect, divisive, and worse

What views can any person have that many don't regard as being incorrect, divisive  and worse?

It doesn't matter what your views are on anything, somebody somewhere is going to think they're wrong, divisive and downright offensive. This used to be ok and we would just agree to disagree with those people. The world was a better place when people were able to do that.

Agreed to some extent. It isn't black and white; it is all shades of grey.

Nonetheless I don't like seeing preachers (religious, political, and otherwise) encouraging other people to have extremist views that harm third parties. Unsocial media makes that too easy.

[james_s]

Agreed to some extent. It isn't black and white; it is all shades of grey.

Nonetheless I don't like seeing preachers (religious, political, and otherwise) encouraging other people to have extremist views that harm third parties. Unsocial media makes that too easy.

I don't either, but again it's very hard to have a view that somebody somewhere doesn't think is extremist and harmful to third parties. As someone that is all over the place politically and overall somewhere close to the center, both the far left AND the far right thinks that some of my views are extremist and harmful to third parties. Not only is it all shades of gray, it's all relative. It's a lot like voltage, the reading you get all depends on which point you decide to call "ground" and you can have two completely different readings that are both valid and correct.

[.RC.]

We left analogue years ago.   It is all digital now.

While I did initially post this as a bit of a joke.  If you stop and seriously think about it.  It is probably not far off the mark.

[tggzzz]

Agreed to some extent. It isn't black and white; it is all shades of grey.

Nonetheless I don't like seeing preachers (religious, political, and otherwise) encouraging other people to have extremist views that harm third parties. Unsocial media makes that too easy.

I don't either, but again it's very hard to have a view that somebody somewhere doesn't think is extremist and harmful to third parties. As someone that is all over the place politically and overall somewhere close to the center, both the far left AND the far right thinks that some of my views are extremist and harmful to third parties. Not only is it all shades of gray, it's all relative. It's a lot like voltage, the reading you get all depends on which point you decide to call "ground" and you can have two completely different readings that are both valid and correct.

There is very little difference between far-left and far-right: both want to impose their views on other people regardless of the harm. And worse: too often the harm is the objective of their views.

Both Stalin and Goebbels knew that, both saying they could turn a far-left/right fanatic into a far-right/left fanatic within a week.

Unfortunately nowadays it is too easy for nutcases to publish their nuttery. There will always be some other nuts that believe it and and malefactors that amplify it for their own ends.

[Zero999]

Agreed to some extent. It isn't black and white; it is all shades of grey.

Nonetheless I don't like seeing preachers (religious, political, and otherwise) encouraging other people to have extremist views that harm third parties. Unsocial media makes that too easy.

I don't either, but again it's very hard to have a view that somebody somewhere doesn't think is extremist and harmful to third parties. As someone that is all over the place politically and overall somewhere close to the center, both the far left AND the far right thinks that some of my views are extremist and harmful to third parties. Not only is it all shades of gray, it's all relative. It's a lot like voltage, the reading you get all depends on which point you decide to call "ground" and you can have two completely different readings that are both valid and correct.

There is very little difference between far-left and far-right: both want to impose their views on other people regardless of the harm. And worse: too often the harm is the objective of their views.

Both Stalin and Goebbels knew that, both saying they could turn a far-left/right fanatic into a far-right/left fanatic within a week.

Unfortunately nowadays it is too easy for nutcases to publish their nuttery. There will always be some other nuts that believe it and and malefactors that amplify it for their own ends.

The problem is it only works one way. That black woman who lamented at the terribly white balcony at the coronation, hasn't been cancelled, like Scott Adams.

[EPAIII]

"The U.S. remains a society where racism and misogyny is deeply ingrained."

Interesting statement about a society where over 350,000 WHITE men and women DIED to end the slavery of black people in the country. Many more suffered life-long injuries.

On top of that, the WHITE (and Christian) nations and peoples of Europe are the one ones who were principally responsible for the END of slavery in most of the world. White, Christian Europe was ENDING slavery when most of the rest of the world was still embracing it and profiting from it. That includes NATIVES of Africa who were the ones mostly responsible for capturing and enslaving most, if not all of their fellow Africans who were sold in the slave markets.

But present day blacks are no more responsible for slavery than present day whites. None of us are responsible for the wrong-doings of those who are long dead.

Are there racists? YES, there are. I have met them. I have worked with them. But they are a MINORITY! A  SMALL MINORITY! I live in a mixed neighborhood, white (whatever that is), black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, and more and no one here cares. Over 30 years here and the neighborhood has only become more mixed. SO WHAT? People are just people.

The real villains are the ones who are turning us against each other with accusations of racism. They use hatred to gain power for themselves.

No matter what tint of glasses you look through, the U.S. remains a society where racism and misogyny is deeply ingrained. Adams seems to be someone who wears his opinions on his sleeve and amplifies it with his podcast.

[coppice]

"The U.S. remains a society where racism and misogyny is deeply ingrained."

Interesting statement about a society where over 350,000 WHITE men and women DIED to end the slavery of black people in the country. Many more suffered life-long injuries.

We are getting even worse garbage pushed in the UK. Like people complaining the UK never apologised for North Atlantic slavery. Instead of a meaningless "sorry" the UK committed thousands of sailors lives and huge resources to stamping out sea borne slavery routes. Unfortunately, even when the UK ruled a large chunk of the planet it couldn't stamp out all the land borne slavery routes, Some of which still flourish today. I notice that none of the people who complain about slavery from the past seem to think slavery is so awful they should be doing anything about the slavery we still see today.

[thinkfat]

The problem is it only works one way. That black woman who lamented at the terribly white balcony at the coronation, hasn't been cancelled, like Scott Adams.

Well, she sure received some public backlash and had to paddle back. As far as Adams is concerned, the latest "incident" sure wasn't the first. I found his views and statements often fueled by a white/male supremacy complex. Eventually I stopped reading his blog and subsequently payed no more attention to Dilbert, too. I wasn't comfortable supporting him in any way. As far as I'm concerned he's free to express his views, but I for one won't be part of it. I can completely understand how mainstream media don't want that, either. He will find out soon enough if he's worth anything apart from being an artist and a comedian.

[Zero999]

The problem is it only works one way. That black woman who lamented at the terribly white balcony at the coronation, hasn't been cancelled, like Scott Adams.

Well, she sure received some public backlash and had to paddle back.

True, but she hasn't faced any real consequences. She still has her acting job. Had a pale male said something bad about black people, he would have been treated much more harshly, even if he didn't receive the same level of public criticism. Take historian David Starkey for example. This obvious double standard shows that black/minority privilege is real in many scenarios.

I don't think she should be cancelled. She should be free to make such silly, hateful comments if she likes and the same should be true for Scott Adams.

As far as Adams is concerned, the latest "incident" sure wasn't the first. I found his views and statements often fueled by a white/male supremacy complex. Eventually I stopped reading his blog and subsequently payed no more attention to Dilbert, too. I wasn't comfortable supporting him in any way. As far as I'm concerned he's free to express his views, but I for one won't be part of it. I can completely understand how mainstream media don't want that, either. He will find out soon enough if he's worth anything apart from being an artist and a comedian.

I don't know anything about his views other than this one video. It's of course your choice to stop consuming his content, because you disagree with him. The problem is, his publisher hasn't dropped him because no one was buying, but through pressure from a few activists. There are plenty of others who would have been happy to continue to see his content, in various publications, yet no longer have the choice.

[tggzzz]

... She should be free to make such silly, hateful comments if she likes ...

... and presumably shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. If not, where's the boundary?

That's a notoriously difficult problem, akin to defining "art".

There are plenty of others who would have been happy to continue to see [Adams'] content, in various publications, yet no longer have the choice.

Not sure why you say that. My understanding is they do have the choice, on multiple platforms.

[EEVblog]

Not sure why you say that. My understanding is they do have the choice, on multiple platforms.

That's not how the newspaper business works. No syndication company, no comic in newspapers.
And in this case said syndication company had the website and reader database.

[tggzzz]

Not sure why you say that. My understanding is they do have the choice, on multiple platforms.

That's not how the newspaper business works. No syndication company, no comic in newspapers.
And in this case said syndication company had the website and reader database.

Sure. So what? That doesn't conflict with what I wrote!

People do still have the choice of reading Adams' output, because Adams has arranged for it to be on other platforms.

Such free market choice and activities are just what libertarians love and promote.