The Death of Dilbert and False Claims of White Victimhood

[Into the Night]

Censorship is when the government curbs speech/expression, like DeSantis is hoping to do with Disney. Censorship is not dropping a controversial subject/person from your business; it's a business decision. You know, like Kaep getting fired at least partially for the #TakeAKnee thing. Trump getting banned from Twitter. Dr. Seuss's family deciding to no longer publish a particular book or two.

DeSantis is not curbing any speech or expression from Disney. He is pointing out their woke mentality (and Disney is suffering because of it!), but DeSantis allows them to destroy themselves this way.
Obviously you don't know what 'censorship' means.

 

[LurchAddams]

He has definitely bought into Trumpism and grievance politics, hasn't he? I had to laugh at his claim that his crappy Dilbert TV show was canceled because he's a white man.

Wow, did he really claim that?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It's not the video that offends us. It is the fact that this guy is a full-on, full-blown racist. I'm sorry too that I won't be buying his daily desk calendars for my husband, or reading Dilbert Classics on my subscription service. But I cannot in good conscience financially support someone like Adams. He should have just kept his big fucking yap shut and we would all be the better for it. Let's put the blame right on where it belongs -- on Scott Adams.

JPP is totally infected with ugly racist blathering, but neither of us boycotts it.
I guess I'm not understanding the difference.

I've heard stupid people say stupid things for my entire 76 years on this earth.
I've never expected to be protected from it.
There are far more important things from which I'd like protection, and I don't always get it.

I've got to remember that different people have different mindsets and different concepts of what's important.
I think that this is what we're really looking at with this issue.

 

[Into the Night]

eat shit you stupid asshole

Oooooo. I hit close to home again!

 

[BidenPresident]

Oooooo. I hit close to home again!

get lost you asshole troll

 

[Into the Night]

JPP is totally infected with ugly racist blathering, but neither of us boycotts it.
I guess I'm not understanding the difference.

I've heard stupid people say stupid things for my entire 76 years on this earth.
I've never expected to be protected from it.
There are far more important things from which I'd like protection, and I don't always get it.

I've got to remember that different people have different mindsets and different concepts of what's important.
I think that this is what we're really looking at with this issue.

Why would you boycott yourself??

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Wow, did he really claim that?

Yep.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

.

No. Since that's not possible. If I own the forum, I can post whatever I want on it.

Oh, but it's very possible, Milquetoast. In many places, people are arrested and persecuted for what they publish on their own media platforms.
While I'll be the first to admit that it wouldn't be right,
I'm not perfect,
and I would get quite a laugh out of seeing that happen to you.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

JPP is totally infected with ugly racist blathering, but neither of us boycotts it.
I guess I'm not understanding the difference.

I've heard stupid people say stupid things for my entire 76 years on this earth.
I've never expected to be protected from it.
There are far more important things from which I'd like protection, and I don't always get it.

I've got to remember that different people have different mindsets and different concepts of what's important.
I think that this is what we're really looking at with this issue.

Look at it this way. If you saw a woman, or a Jewish person, or an Italian gramma, or a dog being abused, would you just walk away or would you do something, even if it's just calling the police? That's what we so-called woke ppl are doing with asswipes like Adams. We are standing up against an abusive attitude -- one that has harmed a good percentage of our fellow citizens for years. We can't punch his face in, but we can withdraw our financial support by boycotting him. The newspapers that carried his comic are doing the same, as well as protecting their business from a similar boycott. It sucks for all of us who enjoyed Dilbert.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Look at it this way. If you saw a woman, or a Jewish person, or an Italian gramma, or a dog being abused, would you just walk away or would you do something, even if it's just calling the police? That's what we so-called woke ppl are doing with asswipes like Adams. We are standing up against an abusive attitude -- one that has harmed a good percentage of our fellow citizens for years. We can't punch his face in, but we can withdraw our financial support by boycotting him. The newspapers that carried his comic are doing the same, as well as protecting their business from a similar boycott. It sucks for all of us who enjoyed Dilbert.[/QUOT

I sort of get it,
but being the target of somebody's idiotic verbal blathering
is not something that appears terrifying
to somebody who's been shot at in war
or even punched in the face in sport.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I sort of get it,
but being the target of somebody's idiotic verbal blathering
is not something that appears terrifying
to somebody who's been shot at in war
or even punched in the face in sport.

You might find this hard to believe, Nifty, but very few of us have had those experiences. Some of us HAVE experienced discrimination due to some personal characteristic, like race or sex. Why should someone who espouses abuse feel entitled to suffering no consequences? The readers are, sadly, the collateral damage of an unhinged moron who shot his mouth off publicly.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, but it's very possible, Milquetoast. In many places, people are arrested and persecuted for what they publish on their own media platforms.

Under what authority?

While I'll be the first to admit that it wouldn't be right,
I'm not perfect,
and I would get quite a laugh out of seeing that happen to you.

Because you like censorship.

 

[Into the Night]

Look at it this way. If you saw a woman, or a Jewish person, or an Italian gramma, or a dog being abused, would you just walk away or would you do something, even if it's just calling the police? That's what we so-called woke ppl are doing with asswipes like Adams. We are standing up against an abusive attitude -- one that has harmed a good percentage of our fellow citizens for years. We can't punch his face in, but we can withdraw our financial support by boycotting him. The newspapers that carried his comic are doing the same, as well as protecting their business from a similar boycott. It sucks for all of us who enjoyed Dilbert.

Scott Adams is not abusing any women, any dog, or any Jew.
Gaslighting.

 

[QP!]

People are defending the obvious--privately owned newspapers can publish or not publish whatever syndicated material that they wish.

My consternation about this entire issue pertains to this:

everybody wants to claim that a racist cartoonist got his just deserts, but I'm the only one who has shown any concern
for the people who enjoyed and will miss the cartoon itself.

Their feelings are just as important as those of the hypersensitive people who are offended by an obscure video that few people actually saw.

I do not understand what issue you see though.

Are you saying 'because people enjoy his cartoon XYZ company should be forced to carry it'?

Because in this internet age, if he appreciates the people who appreciate his cartoons and he finds no company wants to carry it, he can simply self publish on his web site. Everyone who enjoys his cartoons would in no way to struggle to see them there.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Prove they are false

Prove a negative? Isn't it up to the racist fuckwads to prove it's true?

FWIW, I think Adams, who is 65 this year, is sinking into paranoia and dementia. His rights have not been affected. He still has his $75M and can easily publish whatever racist cartoons he likes on a website or via email chains. I'm certain Pedo Don would welcome his cartoons on Truth Social.

Since all of that is true, what's the problem? That businesses exercised their right to not associate with a racist?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Scott Adams is not abusing any women, any dog, or any Jew.
Gaslighting.

Who is saying he did, Sybil? Besides you through implication?

 

[Yakuda]

Prove a negative? Isn't it up to the racist fuckwads to prove it's true?

FWIW, I think Adams, who is 65 this year, is sinking into paranoia and dementia. His rights have not been affected. He still has his $75M and can easily publish whatever racist cartoons he likes on a website or via email chains. I'm certain Pedo Don would welcome his cartoons on Truth Social.

Since all of that is true, what's the problem? That businesses exercised their right to not associate with a racist?

A person makes a claim they should show evidence for then claim. Apparently fuckwads are everywhere

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I do not understand what issue you see though.

Are you saying 'because people enjoy his cartoon XYZ company should be forced to carry it'?

Because in this internet age, if he appreciates the people who appreciate his cartoons and he finds no company wants to carry it, he can simply self publish on his web site. Everyone who enjoys his cartoons would in no way to struggle to see them there.

Of course I'm not saying that a privately owned operation should be forced to carry anything.
Newspapers who wish to terminate syndication deals obviously have the right to do so. Why wouldn't they?

I'm just saying that as we focus on cancelling out a racist cartoonist of minor consequence,
the people who enjoyed his cartoon in their morning paper also got cancelled without having done anything wrong.

I suppose I don't think of internet outlets because I'm from a previous generation.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

A person makes a claim they should show evidence for then claim. Apparently fuckwads are everywhere

Agreed. Adams should prove his claim.

Agreed on fuckwads too. Most are on the backside of the IQ Bell Curve. I support having all Americans pass an IQ and education test before they can vote. Do you agree?

 

[QP!]

Of course I'm not saying that a privately owned operation should be forced to carry anything.
Newspapers who wish to terminate syndication deals obviously have the right to do so. Why wouldn't they?

I'm just saying that as we focus on cancelling out a racist cartoonist of minor consequence,
the people who enjoyed his cartoon in their morning paper also got cancelled without having done anything wrong.

I suppose I don't think of internet outlets because I'm from a previous generation.

This is how i feel about this topic.

I believe in a robust 1st Amendment with regards to Free Speech. We do not want the government stepping in and telling people what they can and cannot say, think or cannot think.

In exchange for that, and having government stay out, society must act to police the worst elements amongst them. They do thru isolation and ostracization. You want to think the most racist thing possible, fine, but you want to go to the office each day and say it in mixed company, you get fired, and people stop associating with you. And that has to be fine too.


In today's world the far right is calling any attempt by society to police their worst racism and actions as wrong and they are seeking for gov't (DeSantis and others) to protect them from societal consequences. The far right has zero respect for free speech or association and wants a fascist gov't to make sure they cannot be excluded by others or corporations no matter what they say or do.

In the past the worst elements amongst us, the true deplorables, used to self censor far more knowing the rest of society might make them face consequences, but today they are increasingly emboldened as they see less and less consequences and know that people fascist leaders like DeSantis and Trump will stand up for them.