Forum menu
Well Scott Adams finally took it that bit too far. It'll be interesting to look at the website and see where it goes with no oversight from mainstream media...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64775250
Scott Adams lost the plot years ago.
https://www.theawl.com/2017/12/dilbert-a-reckoning/
The ability to detect irony is increasingly necessary for being alive in America. If you have not by now recognized on your own that the world has been careening through a too-salty first draft of The Onion, there is no helping you. Irony is especially important with Dilbert because the antagonist of Dilbert, at least for the first few decades, was the Pointy-Haired Boss. And there is no other person in the entire public consciousness who is more like the Pointy-Haired Boss than Donald Trump.
Many times, Trump is belligerent where the Pointy-Haired Boss is merely daft, but the basic thrust of both characters is the same: they understand nothing about any situation but proudly bulldoze their way through every room they enter. They have no friends, but having no friends is not really a problem because they don’t even want friends. They are incapable of thinking about anything other than themselves. And yet they are also incapable of introspection or self-improvement. (Again, not a big problem: they’re not interested.) Everything they touch crumbles to dust but still (and this was the central thesis of Dilbert) the world is for some reason still cruddily bent into a dumb shape that unfailingly supports them anyway. There is, yes, the funny hair.
The Pointy-Haired Boss has also been undergoing a makeover over the decades-long arc of Dilbert, becoming an increasingly sympathetic character. The Dilbert reader of, say, 1997 would find it sacrilege to learn that, in 2017, there are comic strips where the Pointy-Haired Boss is the discerning voice of reason and it is his employees who are difficult, selfish, stupid:
He's always been an unpleasant sod.
He has such a high regard of his own opinion and so little of others that he would be impossible to be around. It's a shame as he did have alternative opinions that could make you relook at your own views but he would do it in such a way that the whole experience would be unpleasant and there was something seriously wrong with you if you didn't agree
He's on Patreon a lot now though so this might even give him a boost there, who knows
Edit:sorry, not Patreon, he moved to locals.com now
conspiracy theorist loon who lost the plot years ago. Should have stuck to mildly amusing comics rather than pretending he had something meaningful or interesting to say.
Deplatform and cancel him. Like Dahl, another conspiracy theorist loon. Erase, rewrite and forget.
Bye bye racist, tin-foil hat nut job.
If you listen to his subsequent podcast he takes 20 minutes to explain the logic behind what he said, but, there is no doubt that he understands concise language as that is what he does when he writes cartoons and when he says white people should avoid black people there is zero doubt that he is trying to stir controversy in an unpleasant way. I can't see why newspapers would want to do anything other than distance themselves from him
I can’t see why newspapers would want to do anything other than distance themselves from him
There's a very large, profitable audience that will buy it.
There’s a very large, profitable audience that will buy it.
Oh completely. I can't see him running out of income any time soon
When does his Daily Mail contract start?
It's quite scary to think a quarter of black people in that people poll didn't think it was OK to be white, that is racist. However the Dilbert man has then gone on to blame all black people for the views of a minority (although the other quarter who weren't sure also need to have a serious word with themselves) which is exactly what was objecting too.
We do need to confront the racist attitudes across society, making the comments he did won't further that cause.
I think we need context to why some might not agree with it.
His comments were made in response to a survey in which people were asked to agree or disagree with the phrase: "It's OK to be white.".
The phrase is believed to have emerged in 2017 as a trolling campaign and has since been used by white supremacists.
It’s quite scary to think a quarter of black people in that people poll didn’t think it was OK to be white, that is racist.
I think you are missing the context. It is a phrase adopted by white supremacists & racists. A bit like ‘All lives matter’. On the surface you can’t disagree with the statement, which is why it was invented, but it is a signal for indicating extreme views. It is purposely designed to elicit a negative response to what appears to be a reasonable phrase.
If someone came up with the phrase ‘I believe the earth is round’ on the understanding this actually meant ‘I like having sex with young children’ then you could see why people might disagree with the statement.
It’s quite scary to think a quarter of black people in that people poll didn’t think it was OK to be white, that is racist.
No it is not scary at all because it is a nonsense question. And it is designed to be such.
What does it even mean? Everyone needs to be black because being white isn't okay?
No it is not scary at all because it is a nonsense question.
Scott Adams even makes that point himself, it was a stupid survey with a question which can take on multiple meanings so the survey really had no value. The problem for Scott was he then used that to make an inflammatory statement knowing full well the result, in the same way he refers to 'the woke democrats' knowing that he doesn't think all democrats are woke but also knowing that that's how people will read his words. He really brought this on himself by trying to be too clever
To think he used to actually be quite progressive in terms of creating a pleasant environment to work in.
I'm not going to be burning my Dilbert books any time soon but definitely won't be putting any money his way.
Where's Bill Watterson when you need him?
There's a lot of extremist views on the internet recently. The last three years have been disturbing.
I work in an oppositional developing nation. I have to listen to a lot of brainwashing anti-democratic views here. I read about woke/anti-woke viewpoints in the international news.
What's true/valid anymore?
How much of this nonsense is drummed up by russian/Iranian numpties trying to destabilize our society?
Try not to get some ucked up into extremist viewpoints.
How much of this nonsense is drummed up by russian/Iranian numpties trying to destabilize our society?
The subject matter here is an American expressing his views on American society. I know that blaming foreigners for societal issues is popular but how responsible do you really think Iranians are for Scott Adams's apparent racist views, in their search to destabilise American society?
Russia, Iran (and China) are absolutely actors in all this… the internet has ended up being a gift to them when it comes to spreading and magnifying disinformation, discontent and disorder.
Because of course the Iranians give a toss about Scott Adams's racist opinions.
It is anti-foreigner conspiracy nonsense like that which the far-right thrives on. Ironically.
The Iranians just want to be left alone, they are not interested in world domination or destabilising American society, whatever right-wing nutjobs might claim.
I don't believe that mrdestructo was referring specifically or even indirectly to Mr Adams, he was talking about the country in which he works. That's how it read to me, anyway.
I hate to break it to you Ernie, but despite your unwavering and occasionally admirable enthusiasm to go from Zero to That's Racist at the slightest of opportunities, sometimes foreigners don't have the best interests at heart of those who are foreign to them. Just ask someone from Ukraine, for instance. Or closer to home, if you think Russia didn't have a hand in your brexit then you're deluding yourself.
Ironically.
... that said, a lot of governments don't have their populace's best interests at heart either. Just look at China, or the UK. We're still trying to ban encryption, though Hanlon's Razor isn't wildly implausible here.
Apologies for the tangent, as you were.
It is a phrase adopted by white supremacists
Silly me for not realising the words didn't mean what they meant.
As with everything context is key.
If only the news article had pointed that out.
Silly me for not realising the words didn’t mean what they meant.
You know, I won't actually go to the foot of my stairs if you claim to take literally every sentence you read.
sometimes foreigners don’t have the best interests at heart of those who are foreign to them.
Which means that Iran is trying to destabilise the United States and it is somehow connected to a daft comment made by an American comic strip cartoonist? Get a grip.
What is not in doubt is that for 45 years the United States has been very obviously trying to destabilise Iran. Why? Because they want to re-establish an American stooge government in a region with "vital US interests", as existed before when Iran was even less democratic than it is now.
The idea that Iran wants to similarly destabilise the United States is very obviously right-wing conspiracy nonsense.
Firstly Iran is clearly not in a position to destabilise a country as powerful as the United States. And secondly if Iran did manage to somehow bring down the United States government what would it be replaced with - the Islamic Caliphate of the USA? FFS
Although I know that the right-wing redneck nutjob mantra is "because they hate America".
It is ironic indeed that on a thread dedicated to the consequences of racist comment made by an American cartoonist crass islamophobia, so loved by right-wing racists, should surface.
You are simply wrong about Iran, and that state’s use of the internet to sow discontent and confusion abroad, including in the USA. Of course they won’t “bring down” the USA, and they’re not trying to establish anything to do with Islam there… no idea where you got that from. It’s disinformation and division they want to encourage. Using and encouraging racism in the USA (and elsewhere) has been one of their means of doing so. Probably second only to pandemic related confusion.
This comes to mind.
Should apply to both sides (perspectives)
Picard Speech - Drumhead (S4E21)
Captain Jean-Luc Picard : Mister Worf, villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged. Lieutenant Worf : I think... after yesterday, people will not be so ready to trust her.
no idea where you got that from
Well read the thread in that case. I even copied and pasted the comment. Here it is again:
How much of this nonsense is drummed up by russian/Iranian numpties trying to destabilize our society?
It is clearly trying to plant the idea that the Iranians could somehow be responsible for Scott Adams’s daft racist comment, because they are trying "to destabilise our society".
Never miss an opportunity to have a dig at foreigners if your society fails in some way, especially if it can whip up a bit of islamophobia at the same time.
Iranian (and Russian and Chinese) disinformation campaigns been trying to build up racist feelings and actions in the USA. One of the Iranian ones that Facebook discovered included spreading memes about shooting black mall/supermarket staff… really unpleasant stuff. Stick your head in the sand if you want, but I’m afraid Iran is one of the states using the internet in this particular way abroad. Russia might be better known for it, and China have the scale, but Iran is at it as well.
The claim was about "destabilising our society", I take that as meaning bringing down a government and causing huge change - which is exactly what happens when the United States destabilises a country.
Iran struggles to destabilise neighbouring Iraq let alone has the capability to destabilise Western society. It is standard right-wing shock jock talk. I have no idea why it has surfaced on a thread about an American comic strip.
No real knowledge of the artist himself, but I do love Dilbert...will be a shame if that ends.
Daft question, but is it possible the media have misunderstood his comment? Having not read any of the background stuff, I'm hoping it is 'just' a misunderstanding of a comment.
Saying that, if it turns out he really is racist and being vocal with it, then he deserves to be shutdown.
Live and let live, but I suspect the let live bit is difficult for a number of people (which is aimed at racists in general, not any particular people on this thread).
Just been flicking through my Dilbert book… still damn funny and portrays working in a 1990’s IT department perfectly. Adam’s went odd on social media about five years ago, proper “easiest to just unfollow and block this guy” stuff. Unsurprised at this recent event… but no idea whether he has been on a “journey” about how he feels toward his fellow citizens, or has just been pushing what he can openly say but has always thought, or whether he is playing with what can be said without believing in it himself. Only he can know for sure.
The claim was about “destabilising our society”, I take that as meaning bringing down a government and causing huge change –
The actual claim was "trying to destabilise", your inference is a non sequitur.
Thanks ransos that is really useful but I had already acknowledged that point as in :
because they are trying “to destabilise our society”.
Daft question, but is it possible the media have misunderstood his comment? Having not read any of the background stuff, I’m hoping it is ‘just’ a misunderstanding of a comment.
No, he sadly turned into an alt-right nutter quite few years ago. His twitter feed is full of pro-Trump / cancel culture / etc etc stuff. A pity - I was also a Dilbert fan for many years, but I can't bring myself to read him now.
Thanks ransos that is really useful but I had already acknowledged that point as in :
So as I said, your inference is a non sequitur.
Daft question, but is it possible the media have misunderstood his comment?
Your question isn't daft imo but the question in question, so to speak, ie : Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white”? was indeed daft.
As pointed out in this comment:
Disagreeing with the statement might mean, “I see what you’re doing there: trying to weasel out of white society’s obligation to recognize the intrinsic injustices it inflicts on black citizens!” Or it might mean, “I hate those honky bastards! They’re all the same: evil.” Without defining terms, no poll is legitimate.
Which means that Iran is trying to destabilise the United States and it is somehow connected to a daft comment made by an American comic strip cartoonist? Get a grip.
As I said,
I don’t believe that mrdestructo was referring specifically or even indirectly to Mr Adams, he was talking about the country in which he works. That’s how it read to me, anyway.
The rest of your wall of text is all very commendable, but I think you're railing against an "idea" from a poster here which doesn't actually exist outside of your own head. The quote that you "even copied and pasted" you'd taken out of context.
... as it looked to me, anyway. I might be wrong.
he was talking about the country in which he works.
I thought he worked in China, no? He didn't mention China, apparently Russia and Iran are the villains here.
But fair enough if you think mrdestructo's comment wasn't in anyway refering to the Divert/Scott Adams story which is what this thread is apparently about. I still disagree that Iran is "trying" to destabilise our society though. I think that they want is to be left alone, and unsurprisingly sometimes take hostile actions in retaliation.
I think that they want is to be left alone...
...to continue oppressing at least half their population using extreme religiosity as the tool to do it.
Yeah, you're right. There's nothing off with that.
…to continue oppressing at least half their population using religious extremism as the tool to do it.
Well yes if that's the way you want to look at it. They definitely don't want the United States to interfere in their national affairs.
It should be remembered that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the direct consequence of Western interference btw. Before the West decided to interfere and install a hated dictatorship Iran was a democracy. Unfortunately, for the Iranians, that didn't serve Western interests.