7 ms·

> He always felt culturally like family to me. His peaks—the biting humor about corporate absurdity, the writing on systems thinking and compounding habits, the

by tartoran 10mo ago

> He always felt culturally like family to me. His peaks—the biting humor about corporate absurdity, the writing on systems thinking and compounding habits, the clarity about the gap between what organizations say and what they do—unquestionably made me healthier, happier, and wealthier. If you worked in tech in the 90s and 2000s, Dilbert was a shared language for everything broken about corporate life. Same to me when it comes his comics. There is an ugly part I did not like about Scott Adams but, that doesn't mean I will like his work (Dilbert) less. I have to admit it felt disappointing to find out about his vitriol online. Best wishes to his family and rest in peace for Scott. alway

Aurornis 10mo ago
Learning to appreciate someone's art while disagreeing with their politics is a rite of passage in the age of the internet. There are a few artists whose output I can't even enjoy any more because their vitriol became so out of control that I couldn't see their work without thinking of their awfulness, though. (Note: I'm not talking about Scott Adams. I'm honestly not that familiar with his later life social media)
- mjr00 10mo ago
  "Can art be separated from the artist?" is an age-old debate. > There are a few artists whose output I can't even enjoy any more because their vitriol became so out of control that I couldn't see their work without thinking of their awfulness, though. I think this is common. Everyone separates art from the artist based on their own personal measurements on 1) how much they liked the art and 2) how much they dislike the artist's actions/beliefs. I'm sure a lot of people lambasting the GP for not completely rejecting Dilbert due to its creator still listen to Michael Jackson, or play Blizzard games, or watch UFC. There are musicians I listen to who have been accused of SA, but there are musicians I enjoyed but stop listening to because I found out they were neo-Nazis (not in the Bluesky sense, but in the "swastika tattoo" sense). I was never a Dilbert fan, but know it spoke to people like the GP commenter and completely understand why they'd be conflicted.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- LexiMax 10mo ago
  > There are a few artists whose output I can't even enjoy any more because their vitriol became so out of control that I couldn't see their work without thinking of their awfulness, though. Thank you for at least acknowledging this. It's valid to appreciate someone's art while disagreeing with their behavior, but it's also valid if someone's behavior sours you on their art and makes it difficult to appreciate what they've accomplished - especially if you start to recognize some of their inner ugliness in their artistic endeavors. Personally, I found that I connected with his early work a lot more than his latter work, as I found Dlibert's "nerd slice of life" arc a lot more compelling than his "Office microaggression of the week" arc. Scott revealing his inner ugliness did not make me eager to return, but I still keep a well-worn Dlibert mouse pad on my desk that my Dad gave me as a teenager; the one that says "Technology: No place for whimps." Wherever Scott is now, I hope he's found peace. EDIT: A few strips that live rent-free in my head. - https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-quest-for-randomness - https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/hzws/dilbert_condescending_unix_user/ - https://www.facebook.com/groups/423326463636282/posts/581619887806938/ (The Optimist vs The Pessimist)
  - jrmg 10mo ago
    There’s a mean-spiritedness to even many of the early strips that, at the time, I thought was part of the gag - a sort of self-knowing nod to and mockery of the mean parts of office and engineering culture. In the spirit of ‘laughing with not laughing at’. I’m not sure if Adams’ later real-life self-superiority and mean spiritedness evolved from that over time, or if he was always like that inside and we just didn’t see it, but I find myself unable to laugh with the strips in the same way now nevertheless.
  - teddyh 10mo ago
    Better links: • <https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/2001-10-25 https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/2001-10-25> • <https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1995-06-24 https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1995-06-24> • <https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1991-01-03 https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1991-01-03>
- hinkley 10mo ago
  There’s also a lot of artistic creepers, which predate the internet but the internet shone a light on their creepiness. I would, for instance, watch The Ninth Gate a couple times a year if Polanski hadn’t directed it, or had directed it post jail instead of hiding from justice for 25 years. Instead I watch it about twice a decade. Luke Beson is almost as problematic, and I have a hard time reconciling just how brilliant Gary Oldman is as Stansfield with how creepy the overall tone is, especially the European cut. I enjoyed that movie when I was young and had seen the American version. Trying to show it to other people (especially the Leon version) and seeing their less enthusiastic reactions made me see the balance of that story less affectionately. As well as seeing it through the lens of an adult responsible for children instead of being the child. Now I watch The Fifth Element and that’s about it.
  - francoisfeugeas 10mo ago
    > Luke Beson Luc Besson.
    - hinkley 10mo ago
      Dudes who have children with 16 year old girls don't get their name spelled right.
  - socalgal2 10mo ago
    Interesting. I showed my right leaning 83 year old mom the full version of Leon last year, she loved it.
  - jonfromsf 10mo ago
    The expectation that artists be "good people" always baffles me. Anyone who becomes a great artist has: 1)High levels of narcissism required to think the world needs to hear "your vision. 2) High levels of sociopathy to thrive in a snake pit like the art world or Hollywood. It's even stranger than if someone expected CEOs to be good people (which we don't).
    - skeeter2020 10mo ago
- c-hendricks 10mo ago
  I'm glad you brought up "in the age of the internet" because there's a part of "separate the art from the artist" that I don't see discussed enough: In the internet age, simply consuming an artists media funds the artist. Get as philosophical as you'd like while separating the art from the artist, but if they're still alive you're still basically saying "look you're a piece of shit but here's a couple of bucks anyways".
  - mjr00 10mo ago
    > but you're still basically saying "look you're a piece of shit but here's a couple of bucks anyways". Is it ethical to buy Dilbert books now that Adams is dead and the money's not going to him?
    - c-hendricks 10mo ago
      Still depends on where the money ultimately goes.
      - Nevermark 10mo ago
        As I once noted to a homeopath regarding their extensive selection of impossibly diluted water remedies, by their own dictum, it's all toilet water.
    - pc86 10mo ago
      If you (the royal you) thought it was unethical to buy a Dilbert book because the person who stood to make something like $4 off of it had some views you disagree with, you are a broken person. Even if Adams agreed with every single opinion you had, it's a statistical certainty that a dozen people who also make money off that book have views you find reprehensible.
      - apparent 10mo ago
        Good point, retailers typically get 50% of the purchase price, which means that they're getting as much as the author/printer/editor/marketer/etc. all combined. So perhaps if you bought the book from a bookstore you wanted to support (assuming they would carry it), that could outweigh the impact to the author.
- SecretDreams 10mo ago
  Meh. I liked Dilbert and it was a part of my childhood. I don't watch it anymore. Much like I no longer listen to Kanye. There's enough good content out there that I can selectively disregard content from individuals who have gone to great lengths to make their worst opinions known. It doesn't mean their content was bad, it just means that juice isn't worth the squeeze.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- vintermann 10mo ago
  Well, it depends. I admit (at risk of cancellation maybe?) that I check in on Stonetoss from time to time, and sometimes I laugh at it. He's made some genuinely funny non-political comics. Also some which are so terribly over the top rihht wing that its fun in a Ben Garrison/Jack Chick kind of way. Very rarely, he even makes a funny political point I sort of agree with (his politics, while messed up, don't map neatly on to the political spectrum, he's not a fan of Trump for instance). But adblock stays on, thank you. He can make money on his crypto grifting, or whatever it is he does. But there are others, whose coming out as right wingers are a lot more saddening. First and foremost of these would be Tom "Geowizard" Davies, the guy most responsible for popularizing geoguessr, the inventor of the straight line mission, and a seemingly very wholesome geography lover. Not only did he come out as supporting Nigel Farage recently, but one of his dreamy bedroom pop songs apparently is about the great replacement theory?! I even bought that album! And I didn't even notice the lyrics, because the idea that that would be what he meant was so far out left field as they say. But yeah, he apparently thinks the white race is dying out?! What the hell, man? "We are the last ones in a very long line"? No, Tom, we objectively are not, whoever you include in "we"! Somehow, trollish assholes like Adams are easier to accept than that.
- snapplebobapple 9mo ago
  He held reasonable, conservative views, which makes him the devil to a minority of very loud people. Kind of like jk rowling
Intralexical 10mo ago
IMO Dilbert was always at its best when it focused more on absurdity, and less on rage, cynicism, or ego. I still occasionally think about Dogbert's airliners that can't handle direct sunlight, the RNG troll that kept repeating "Nine", Wally's minty-fresh toothpaste-saturated shirt, and Asok's misadventures. I do think there was another formula he gravitated towards, though. Maybe one in every four strips, it seemed to me like he would have a canonically "stupid" character present a popular belief or a common behavior, and then have his author self-insert character dunk on them... And that was it, that was the entire comic. Those strips weren't very witty or funny to me, they just felt like contrived fantasies about putting down an opponent. Once I noticed that, it became harder to enjoy the rest of his comics. And easier to imagine how he might have fallen down the grievance politics rabbit hole.
amypetrik214 10mo ago
[flagged]
kenjackson 10mo ago
After hearing his vitriol over the years I do see his comics and writing very differently now. As someone else said, he views everyone as idiots or below him, and needs an out group to target. Dilbert read in that light just seems hateful more than insightful or relatable. I never plan on reading any Scott Adams material for the rest of my life or introducing anyone else to it.

Aurornis 10mo ago

Learning to appreciate someone's art while disagreeing with their politics is a rite of passage in the age of the internet. There are a few artists whose output I can't even enjoy any more because their vitriol became so out of control that I couldn't see their work without thinking of their awfulness, though. (Note: I'm not talking about Scott Adams. I'm honestly not that familiar with his later life social media)

mjr00 10mo ago
"Can art be separated from the artist?" is an age-old debate. > There are a few artists whose output I can't even enjoy any more because their vitriol became so out of control that I couldn't see their work without thinking of their awfulness, though. I think this is common. Everyone separates art from the artist based on their own personal measurements on 1) how much they liked the art and 2) how much they dislike the artist's actions/beliefs. I'm sure a lot of people lambasting the GP for not completely rejecting Dilbert due to its creator still listen to Michael Jackson, or play Blizzard games, or watch UFC. There are musicians I listen to who have been accused of SA, but there are musicians I enjoyed but stop listening to because I found out they were neo-Nazis (not in the Bluesky sense, but in the "swastika tattoo" sense). I was never a Dilbert fan, but know it spoke to people like the GP commenter and completely understand why they'd be conflicted.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
LexiMax 10mo ago
> There are a few artists whose output I can't even enjoy any more because their vitriol became so out of control that I couldn't see their work without thinking of their awfulness, though. Thank you for at least acknowledging this. It's valid to appreciate someone's art while disagreeing with their behavior, but it's also valid if someone's behavior sours you on their art and makes it difficult to appreciate what they've accomplished - especially if you start to recognize some of their inner ugliness in their artistic endeavors. Personally, I found that I connected with his early work a lot more than his latter work, as I found Dlibert's "nerd slice of life" arc a lot more compelling than his "Office microaggression of the week" arc. Scott revealing his inner ugliness did not make me eager to return, but I still keep a well-worn Dlibert mouse pad on my desk that my Dad gave me as a teenager; the one that says "Technology: No place for whimps." Wherever Scott is now, I hope he's found peace. EDIT: A few strips that live rent-free in my head. - https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-quest-for-randomness - https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/hzws/dilbert_condescending_unix_user/ - https://www.facebook.com/groups/423326463636282/posts/581619887806938/ (The Optimist vs The Pessimist)
- jrmg 10mo ago
  There’s a mean-spiritedness to even many of the early strips that, at the time, I thought was part of the gag - a sort of self-knowing nod to and mockery of the mean parts of office and engineering culture. In the spirit of ‘laughing with not laughing at’. I’m not sure if Adams’ later real-life self-superiority and mean spiritedness evolved from that over time, or if he was always like that inside and we just didn’t see it, but I find myself unable to laugh with the strips in the same way now nevertheless.
- teddyh 10mo ago
  Better links: • <https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/2001-10-25 https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/2001-10-25> • <https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1995-06-24 https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1995-06-24> • <https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1991-01-03 https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1991-01-03>
hinkley 10mo ago
There’s also a lot of artistic creepers, which predate the internet but the internet shone a light on their creepiness. I would, for instance, watch The Ninth Gate a couple times a year if Polanski hadn’t directed it, or had directed it post jail instead of hiding from justice for 25 years. Instead I watch it about twice a decade. Luke Beson is almost as problematic, and I have a hard time reconciling just how brilliant Gary Oldman is as Stansfield with how creepy the overall tone is, especially the European cut. I enjoyed that movie when I was young and had seen the American version. Trying to show it to other people (especially the Leon version) and seeing their less enthusiastic reactions made me see the balance of that story less affectionately. As well as seeing it through the lens of an adult responsible for children instead of being the child. Now I watch The Fifth Element and that’s about it.
- francoisfeugeas 10mo ago
  > Luke Beson Luc Besson.
  - hinkley 10mo ago
    Dudes who have children with 16 year old girls don't get their name spelled right.
- socalgal2 10mo ago
  Interesting. I showed my right leaning 83 year old mom the full version of Leon last year, she loved it.
- jonfromsf 10mo ago
  The expectation that artists be "good people" always baffles me. Anyone who becomes a great artist has: 1)High levels of narcissism required to think the world needs to hear "your vision. 2) High levels of sociopathy to thrive in a snake pit like the art world or Hollywood. It's even stranger than if someone expected CEOs to be good people (which we don't).
  - skeeter2020 10mo ago
c-hendricks 10mo ago
I'm glad you brought up "in the age of the internet" because there's a part of "separate the art from the artist" that I don't see discussed enough: In the internet age, simply consuming an artists media funds the artist. Get as philosophical as you'd like while separating the art from the artist, but if they're still alive you're still basically saying "look you're a piece of shit but here's a couple of bucks anyways".
- mjr00 10mo ago
  > but you're still basically saying "look you're a piece of shit but here's a couple of bucks anyways". Is it ethical to buy Dilbert books now that Adams is dead and the money's not going to him?
  - c-hendricks 10mo ago
    Still depends on where the money ultimately goes.
    - Nevermark 10mo ago
      As I once noted to a homeopath regarding their extensive selection of impossibly diluted water remedies, by their own dictum, it's all toilet water.
  - pc86 10mo ago
    If you (the royal you) thought it was unethical to buy a Dilbert book because the person who stood to make something like $4 off of it had some views you disagree with, you are a broken person. Even if Adams agreed with every single opinion you had, it's a statistical certainty that a dozen people who also make money off that book have views you find reprehensible.
    - apparent 10mo ago
      Good point, retailers typically get 50% of the purchase price, which means that they're getting as much as the author/printer/editor/marketer/etc. all combined. So perhaps if you bought the book from a bookstore you wanted to support (assuming they would carry it), that could outweigh the impact to the author.
SecretDreams 10mo ago
Meh. I liked Dilbert and it was a part of my childhood. I don't watch it anymore. Much like I no longer listen to Kanye. There's enough good content out there that I can selectively disregard content from individuals who have gone to great lengths to make their worst opinions known. It doesn't mean their content was bad, it just means that juice isn't worth the squeeze.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
vintermann 10mo ago
Well, it depends. I admit (at risk of cancellation maybe?) that I check in on Stonetoss from time to time, and sometimes I laugh at it. He's made some genuinely funny non-political comics. Also some which are so terribly over the top rihht wing that its fun in a Ben Garrison/Jack Chick kind of way. Very rarely, he even makes a funny political point I sort of agree with (his politics, while messed up, don't map neatly on to the political spectrum, he's not a fan of Trump for instance). But adblock stays on, thank you. He can make money on his crypto grifting, or whatever it is he does. But there are others, whose coming out as right wingers are a lot more saddening. First and foremost of these would be Tom "Geowizard" Davies, the guy most responsible for popularizing geoguessr, the inventor of the straight line mission, and a seemingly very wholesome geography lover. Not only did he come out as supporting Nigel Farage recently, but one of his dreamy bedroom pop songs apparently is about the great replacement theory?! I even bought that album! And I didn't even notice the lyrics, because the idea that that would be what he meant was so far out left field as they say. But yeah, he apparently thinks the white race is dying out?! What the hell, man? "We are the last ones in a very long line"? No, Tom, we objectively are not, whoever you include in "we"! Somehow, trollish assholes like Adams are easier to accept than that.
snapplebobapple 9mo ago
He held reasonable, conservative views, which makes him the devil to a minority of very loud people. Kind of like jk rowling

Intralexical 10mo ago

IMO Dilbert was always at its best when it focused more on absurdity, and less on rage, cynicism, or ego. I still occasionally think about Dogbert's airliners that can't handle direct sunlight, the RNG troll that kept repeating "Nine", Wally's minty-fresh toothpaste-saturated shirt, and Asok's misadventures. I do think there was another formula he gravitated towards, though. Maybe one in every four strips, it seemed to me like he would have a canonically "stupid" character present a popular belief or a common behavior, and then have his author self-insert character dunk on them... And that was it, that was the entire comic. Those strips weren't very witty or funny to me, they just felt like contrived fantasies about putting down an opponent. Once I noticed that, it became harder to enjoy the rest of his comics. And easier to imagine how he might have fallen down the grievance politics rabbit hole.

amypetrik214 10mo ago

[flagged]

kenjackson 10mo ago

After hearing his vitriol over the years I do see his comics and writing very differently now. As someone else said, he views everyone as idiots or below him, and needs an out group to target. Dilbert read in that light just seems hateful more than insightful or relatable. I never plan on reading any Scott Adams material for the rest of my life or introducing anyone else to it.