Dropping the creator of ‘Dilbert’ is free speech at work
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
But then 6 months ago, this article came out and posted/flagged. This whole episode was kinda predicted.
“The normally innocuous workplace comic strip is arguably trying to get itself cancelled after three decades in syndication. But why?”
Its become more political recently, while remaining thoroughly odd. Like he said he was going to vote Hilary over Trump in 2016, but only because he feared assasination.
I'm accepting criticism from anyone who has seen the full context here.
The rest of you are in a fake news bubble but I trust you suspected that.
Scott Adams Interview - It's Okay to Be White
https://www.youtube.com/live/oeFA-n3SMRw?feature=share
While it's annoying that some of the media are refusing to quote him in full or link to his video, the context doesn't add much. He quoted a poll about the demographics of who agrees with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_okay_to_be_white (which is both an innocuous statement and a white supremacist campaign to troll the media into complaining about said statement), then said some frankly ridiculous things about how he no longer (?) identifies as black. He did actually call black Americans a hate group, for some reason.
Overall he appears to have gone insane and I'm not surprised papers are dropping him now. It's not just some ambiguously-racist statements where he's saying it's okay to be white, but also a lot of bizarre and erratic behaviour that must make him a PR nightmare to work with.
the covid pretty much killed the income from dilbert comics, and he's creating a commotion because it has near 0 impact on whatever residual income he's getting from it
Well, protected speech needs to free of consequences from the government.
But the author is right that protected speech does not need to be free of personal or business consequences.
https://i.imgur.com/FfH7WHn_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=gra...
I had some run-ins with Scott Adams on Twitter over the Trump years. The thing that caught my attention was how he was so insecure and petty that he would argue with complete “nobodies” like myself for extended periods of time if you tried to be reasonably persuasive. I think some people badly crave validation of their positions.
I do appreciate Adams’ work, although I think he has “gone off the deep end”. However, is what you write here not potentially a very uncharitable take? Is it not also possible that this man genuinely cares about a fellow man and believes he can somehow get through to you? This is of course putting aside whether he is on the right side of the argument and whether he himself can be argued out of his own position.
Perhaps “argue” is the wrong word.
I hope Adams’ comes around eventually. Until then, we will always have the good old times:
It’s an interesting situation I find myself in more often than I wish: someone has become fairly deplorable but I still like their earlier work. Adams, Roiland, Rowling, Louis C.K. etc.
How does one reconcile that? It really sours things.
> My publisher for non-Dilbert books has canceled my upcoming book and the entire backlist. Still no disagreement about my point of view. My book agent canceled me too.
It's no surprise that he's digging his heels in, no surprise that he's playing the victim... but when he says "no disagreement" he seems to think that people not debating him is tacit agreement that he's right. Or maybe that's what he wants his audience to think. People like you have been debating him on this stuff non-stop for years now. It's inconceivable that people in his professional strata haven't been doing the same. That he's getting canned for crossing the line so blatantly cannot even remotely be a surprise, he must have gotten warnings over his years of edgelording. His only response is the sea lion's battle cry: "debate me!"
> He wrote that he makes contrarian predictions as calculated bets that in the unlikely event they pan out, he would get credit.
Doesn’t care about being right or wrong, but getting credit for the appearance of being right. Poisoning the well for his own amusement.
To clever to be caught but when it happens it’s because it was all part of the master plan