Comic strip Dilbert comes to an end

[Wrichik Basu]

The Dilbert comic strip, which was once widely published in various US newspapers and also made available on dilbert.com, has been discontinued, the last strip being on 13 March 2023. The decision came after its creator, Scott Adams, made some racist remarks in a YouTube video. From this article:

The comic strip Dilbert has been dropped from multiple US newspapers in response to racist comments by its creator, Scott Adams, who called Black Americans a “hate group” and urged white people to “get the hell away” from Black people in a YouTube video.

Adams’s comments on 22 February came in response to a conservative organization’s poll which appeared to show that 26% of Black respondents said they disagreed with the statement “It’s OK to be white”. Another 21% said they were not sure.

The Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post each said on Saturday they were dropping Dilbert because of Adams’s comments.

Gannett, the largest American newspaper publisher, said in statement that USA Today Network – which includes more than 300 local media outlets in 43 states – would immediately cease publishing the cartoon.

“Recent discriminatory comments by the creator, Scott Adams, have influenced our decision to discontinue publishing his comic,” Gannett said in a statement. “While we respect and encourage free speech, his views do not align with our editorial or business values as an organization.”

If you are an established professional with a good income, I am not sure why you would want to be an "influencer" in the first place, and then dig your grave with such comments.

It's sad to see Dilbert going away, but all good things must end some day. So long, Dilbert, Dogbert, Wally, Alice, Asok, Ted, Catbert and Pointy-Haired Boss!

 

[BillTre]

The question in the poll about if "It’s OK to be white” sounds like an anti-Black Lives Matter racist code to me.
Not too surprising that blacks would respond negatively to it.

 

[Klystron]

I ceased reading Dilbert when I switched from paper to digital newspapers around 10 years ago. Prior to that I routinely scanned Dilbert in the comics section but rarely found much humor from Scott Adams in this century.

Certainly I changed after retiring from working in an office, much less a cubicle, but Adams also changed tone from breezy insouciance to something darker and possibly hateful illustrated in his broadcast commentary.

It's sad to see Dilbert going away, but all good things must end some day. So long, Dilbert, Dogbert, Wally, Alice, Asok, Ted, Catbert and Pointy-Haired Boss!

Well said. I had nearly forgotten diminutive Asok with his buzz cut and wry counterpoint to Wally and Ratbert's meanness and lack of integrity.

 

[jtbell]

I just did a Google search for a Dilbert cartoon. The first two results pointed to dilbert.com, which Adams, or maybe his publisher, has apparently taken down. You now get a page that says "If you want to find Dilbert or Scott Adams, here are some leads."

 

[PeroK]

It's like what happened in the old Soviet Union, where people vanished from records and photographs because they had become non-persons. Let's all pretend Dilbert and Scott Adams never existed. How did it get to this in a "free" country?

 

[BillTre]

Let's all pretend Dilbert and Scott Adams never existed. How did it get to this in a "free" country?

Sounds like BS to me.

I am still seeing some Dilbert stuff around and could easily find more (probably including new stuff if I wanted to).
I am certainly seeing more of Scott Adams than I ever had before (and could see more if I wanted to).

The removal of the Dilbert comic from a lot of publications is the free choice of different publications to get not expend their own resources on publishing that. Perhaps Adams als decided to give up on the self-owning disaster he wrought upon himself and start anew (he is now pushing something like a Dilbert reborn).

If you want him, you can find him. His freeness remains intact as far as I can see.
He is just not free to use the resources of others at his own discretion (which could be considered an imposition on the freedom of others).

 

[JT Smith]

https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?st=sr&ac=qr&author=scott+adams

 

[PeroK]

Sounds like BS to me.

I am still seeing some Dilbert stuff around and could easily find more (probably including new stuff if I wanted to).
I am certainly seeing more of Scott Adams than I ever had before (and could see more if I wanted to).

The removal of the Dilbert comic from a lot of publications is the free choice of different publications to get not expend their own resources on publishing that. Perhaps Adams als decided to give up on the self-owning disaster he wrought upon himself and start anew (he is now pushing something like a Dilbert reborn).

If you want him, you can find him. His freeness remains intact as far as I can see.
He is just not free to use the resources of others at his own discretion (which could be considered an imposition on the freedom of others).

If your turn comes you may not be so happy about the rights of others to blacklist you without due process.

 

[DaveC426913]

If your turn comes you may not be so happy about the rights of others to blacklist you without due process.

Sure, but define "due process" in this case? Popularity is an uncontrolled form of currency. You can't exactly demand it.

 

[PeroK]

Sure, but define "due process" in this case? Popularity is an uncontrolled form of currency. You can't exactly demand it.

Due process implies that you must have done something that is actually illegal or that opens you to some sort of prosecution. Or, at least a formal process for gross misconduct. And, where crucially, you are allowed to speak in your own defence.

Your life and career shouldn't be wiped out because you say something that someone else doesn't like. The definitions of "racist", "homophobic", "islamophobic" and "transphobic" are now so broad that almost anyone can get caught for saying something. Here's an example where a professor in the UK was hounded out of her job for perceived transphobia.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...en-stock-resigns-after-transgender-rights-row

 

[DaveC426913]

Due process implies that you must have done something that is actually illegal or that opens you to some sort of prosecution.

But he wasn't and isn't going to be prosecuted.
His success is predicated on the good will of followers, and distributors deliver what their followers want.
How do you have a due process based on good will?

 

[PeroK]

But he wasn't and isn't going to be prosecuted.

Precisely.

 

[DaveC426913]

Precisely.

Right. So your post #8 has no recourse. It may seem unjust that he can be dropped but is there any real basis for throwing shade on, say, BillTre* for being pragmatic about it?
*not that you were, but do you see my point?

To be honest, it's not that I disagree with you, I just think it may be an intractable problem. Like what can you do if the other boys on the playground just decide one day they don't want to be your friend anymore.

 

[jbriggs444]

Like what can you do if the other boys on the playground just decide one day they don't want to be your friend anymore.

Join the mob and become as rabid as they are. That's how mobs grow. Nobody wants to be the sane one and get laughed out of the group.

 

[BillTre]

Due process implies that you must have done something that is actually illegal or that opens you to some sort of prosecution. Or, at least a formal process for gross misconduct. And, where crucially, you are allowed to speak in your own defence.

You are describing a legal situation, not a business relationship.

Your life and career shouldn't be wiped out because you say something that someone else doesn't like.

I know that many pro sports teams have some kind of code of conduct for people they employ. If they violate that there are consequences.

I would expect other businesses and organizations with an important public face to them to have similar rules.
If Adams didn't know about this kind of thing (especially since he is a professional business heckler), he is a foolishly uninformed about this employment.
If he did know about it, he should not be surprised about what happened to him.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A few points:

(1) Adams must be nearing retirement age. One factor in deciding when to retire is how much BS one is willing to take before throwing the switch.

(2) In my opinion, Dilbert has gone rather stale. Don't get me wrong - 30-something years is a tremendous accomplishment, but it's hard to stay fresh for that long. (And many of those that did evolved into unrecognizability over the course of their runs)

(3) Adams has had a target on his back ever since we went public with his political views.

(3B) There is a school of thought that says people with differing political views are wicked and evil, and wicked evil people do not deserve a livelihood. This makes me sad. I think people with differing political views should be convinced,, not destroyed. It also makes me sad because I share many of these people's political beliefs myself: just not that one.

(4) There is talk on the intertubes about replacing Dilbert.com, and doing it in a country where they don't respect US copyright laws. I don;t know if this will happen, or if it just a bunch of blowhards flapping their lips. I don't see this as a positive development.

 

[berkeman]

I need to close this temporarily for Moderation.

Hate speech is indeed illegal in the US*, but I don't know if this "hiding in plain sight" reveal by Scott rises to that standard of proof yet. Let's let this thread cool off for a couple of days, and I'll try to reopen it. Thanks.

Edit: * Hate speech is not illegal in the US, according to the US Supreme Court. It is illegal in some countries (see Wikipedia). However, it is still reasonable to advertisers to distance themselves from it.

 

[berkeman]

After a Mentor discussion, this thread will remain closed. There are plenty of other places on the 'net where this conversation is going on.