> 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
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)
> 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)
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.
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.
Read some interviews with Spielberg and Lucas about how they wanted the Marion character to act and the age they originally wanted. It's not pretty at all. I'm not sure who convinced them to follow a different path, but Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been quite a different film if they had followed through with some of the ideas they were spitballing.
I watched the director’s cut again last week, and I don’t see this at all. The Leon character explicitly refuses Mathilda’s… well they’re not even propositions are they.
Ok. I'm not convinced at this point, because I don't know how Besson allegedly wanted the scenes to be filmed. And that isn't to say I approve of Luc Besson's choices in his personal life — I find the idea of a romance between a 32 year old and a 15 year old unacceptable. Whether there are parallels between his private life and his artistic expression, I am unwilling to speculate on.
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).
Keanu Reeves, Dolly Parton, Weird Al Yankovic, Bryan Cranston… By all accounts I ever found, they’ve always been described as genuinely nice human beings.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe Keanu Reaves as a "great artist". Quite the opposite in fact. Most charitably, he's a decent character actor who does really well in certain roles that suit him well, but outside of those, he is not a great actor. He also allegedly plays bass in a band decently well, though again is no world-class master of the instrument.
But yeah, he's generally acknowledged as a really nice guy, and also easy to work with.
Weird Al Yankovic, too, is not generally considered a "great artist". A funny musician who made a career making silly parody songs a few decades ago, sure, but that's not what I'd call a "great artist". Again, not to denigrate his work; it was pretty funny stuff as I recall, but nothing super-amazing.
By contrast, people who are generally considered the very top of their profession frequently have serious personality problems. Kevin Spacey was considered one of the best actors in Hollywood, and look what happened to him. Tom Cruise is generally considered one of the most talented actors of all time, and while he's amazing on-screen, he's a certifiable crackpot and mouthpiece for a dangerous cult. Klaus Kinski was also an extremely talented actor, and also extremely mentally ill and unstable.
I skipped Dolly because I honestly don't know enough about country music to know if she's a "great artist" or merely "famous over a long time". Same for the other guy: I'm just not familiar. But I called out your choice of Keanu because it's really well-known that he is not a great actor, and he probably agrees. But it's great that he made a good career for himself anyway; as I said, he does well in certain roles that fit him well. I don't consider myself the top 1% in my profession either.
Of course, I guess this could easily veer off into a discussion about what qualifies as "great artist". Does a top-selling musician/singer who has limited range or uses autotune count, or does someone with amazing technical ability but little commercial success not count? Does a "wooden" actor qualify as a "greater artist" if they've grossed higher than Daniel Day Lewis?
They can, but they're competing with assholes, you can figure out the odds.
Like there's an Olympics where everyone's on drugs but a few good folks decide to compete clean.
Want to win fair? Sure, same here. Now here come the whispers, you can just ignore them, sure, but now your girlfriend's pregnant and your bank account is looking a little thin. Good luck.
Seems like quite some assumptions are being made there. Can't work be done for intrinsic reasons? Can't artists (creators more generally) be insular or even reclusive?
I can't agree with that. While unwavering determination is definitely necessary to overcome lack of success, there are other ways to achieve that.
And as was once put to me, the reason that some artists are not appreciated until after their death isn't just a matter of not meeting your heroes, but because they understood something about the present moment that the public was not yet prepared to reflect upon. That we appreciate them in retrospect because they tell us something we are not yet ready to hear. That requires a degree of empathy for humanity that is not well represented in a strictly narcissistic diagnosis.
I'd add Star Wars to the mix, to be honest - at least the early movies. There's nothing I know of implicating George Lucas to be a sex pest like the other examples you mentioned... but Leia's slave costume is something giving off pretty bad vibes from today's viewpoint.
The real answer is because it's a pulp sci-fi movie and Jabba is a gross evil slug monster and him having Leia chained up like that just shows how depraved and dangerous he is. Also Carrie Fisher looks really hot in that outfit and most of the audience is likely to be adolescent boys and men.
The funny answer is.and in a universe in which it's common for alien species to intermingle, and where humans (being the Imperial species) are particularly common, being a "humanophile" might be a kink, the galactic equivalent to being a furry or "monster fucker" in our world.
> Also Carrie Fisher looks really hot in that outfit and most of the audience is likely to be adolescent boys and men.
Well said. It feels really weird to have to defend this in this day and age.
It's ok for a hot actress to be dressed in a skimpy outfit. It was a big deal for our young selves when we watched her. Leia also ends up kicking butt (or kicking Hutt) and it's not like she's underdressed or incompetent in the movies.
This is driving me nuts, people making a big deal out of the slave Leia costume. The only person who had a right to complain was Carrie Fisher -- and she did, because it was an uncomfortable costume.
It's ok to have sexy accesses in sexy outfits. It's not ok if those are the only roles they get, but this wasn't the case.
It's not even a given that Jabba has her in that outfit because he finds it attractive. It could just as well be to titillate human guests or a pure power play.
George Lucas does *not* have a reputation as an amazing or fantastic director (like Roman Polanski etc.). In fact, quite the opposite: his Star Wars prequels have some of the worst direction I've ever seen. His first three SW movies were great, but they were very much team efforts, and in the first one, his wife heavily edited it to make it come out so well. The other two weren't even directed by George. George is (was?) a brilliant ideas person: he had a great vision for his movies, and picked some great people to work with (esp. in FX), but he sucked at actual execution and working with actors and script-writing and all that stuff. His best legacy, aside from the first Star Wars, is really his FX company, Industrial Light & Magic, not his work as director.
Leia's slave costume was nothing awful, was perfectly acceptable in 1983, and shows much less skin than a bikini, and was forced on her by an evil and ruthless gang boss who liked to eat his slaves at times, or feed them to his monsters.
> but Leia's slave costume is something giving off pretty bad vibes from today's viewpoint.
No, it doesn't give bad vibes. It was a sexy actress wearing a skimpy outfit for a couple of scenes in the whole goddamn trilogy! And she kicked butt.
Repeat after me: sexy scenes in movies are ok. And young Carrie Fisher was hot, and that was also ok. I was half in love with her when I first watched Star Wars.
Now, you can ask why Mark Hamill or Harrison Ford weren't put in skimpy outfits and whether it was more often women who got those scenes, and that'd be pertinent. But this doesn't give slave Leia a bad vibe.
It's OK if those scenes had sexy vibes. Sexy vibes aren't bad. This didn't define Leia either, she was mostly competent and kicked imperial butt.
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".
That's a pretty lazy analysis. As an easy counterpoint, no one pays to look at Facebook or Instagram posts, but both Meta and (at least some) individual influencers are able to run profitable businesses based on that media consumption (and you could say the same of some bloggers in the late 00s/early 10s, for that matter). More speculatively, I think there is also an argument to be made that even gratis media consumption gives cultural weight to a work which is then available for monetization, especially in this age of tentpole franchises and granularly tracked personal behavior.
Influencers are, by definition, advertisers - and a particularly insidious, ugly bunch at that.
If we go by the vibe of this thread, it's yet another reason to avoid social media. You wouldn't want to reward people like this.
As for the broader topic, this segues into the worryingly popular fallacy of excluded middle. Just because you're not against something, doesn't mean you're supporting it. Being neutral, ambivalent, or plain old just not giving a fuck about a whole class of issues, is a perfectly legitimate place to be in. In fact, that's everyone's default position for most things, because humans have limited mental capacity - we can't have calculated views on every single thing in the world all the time.
>even gratis media consumption gives cultural weight to a work which is then available for monetization
At a certain point you're just making the argument that any lack of action directly opposing something is "allowing it to thrive", making anyone directly responsible for everything.
Not technically wrong, but at a certain point there has to be a cutoff. Can you really hold yourself responsible for enjoying a movie which is problematic because one of the batteries in one of the cameras used to produce it was bought from a guy who once bought a waffle from a KKK bake sale? The "problematic-ness" is there, no doubt, but how much can you orient your actions towards not-benefiting something you disapprove of before it disables you from actually finding and spreading things you actually do like?
I don't find it fair, nor in good faith to claim my argument is lazy. By downloading the media of the artists who's behavior your find abhorrent, but who's art you enjoy (and you can separate the art from the artists), you can assure yourself to some degree that they are not receiving monetary gain. People who were interested in the Harry Potter game (but didn't want the author to finance) simply pirated the game. Roman Polanski, R Kelly, and many others artists are exploited in this fashion.
I do agree that the consumption of that media could very easily increase its cultural strength.
Even in your influencer example, there are ways to bring less traffic/ad views to that content while allowing some ability to consume. example here: https://libredirect.github.io/
I disagree: network effects are still present even if you block ads. You tell your friends about it, they tell their friends, etc. Only a small fraction of people bother to block ads (or even know about ad-blocking), so the loss in ad revenue to those people is offset by the gain from their friends seeing the ads.
You still increase their algorithmic reach by viewing and interacting with their content. It really is voting with your eyeballs: whether you like or hate the content, if you have it on your screen, the creators benefit.
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.
On the contrary, I think folks that always try to find some sort of hypocrisy in how folks choose to not spend their money are broken.
It seems too cynical by half, and completely discards any sort of relative morality to one's purchasing decisions. I have also long suspected that there is a selfish motivation to it - as if to assuage your (again, the royal your) own morality about how you choose to spend your own money, you need to tear down other people's choices.
My chief complaint is not only that it's spitting into a headwind during a rainstorm, but also just the performative nature of it. Someone enjoys Adams' (Adams's?) work, presumably for years or even decades. He says something gross. That person then, in order to deprive this multi-millionaire of a few dollars, not only deprives themselves of something they ostensibly enjoy[ed], but also has to turn it into a moral or ethical question so they can either feel better about it themselves, or feel superior to people who a) don't really care what Adams said or did, or b) care but are capable of separating the art from the artist.
It's the same kind of performative virtue signaling that led someone at the New York Times to call him racist twice in the first two sentences of his own obituary.
In fact, some of every dollar you spend _must_ go to people you would find reprehensible if only you knew them better. Bought a Slurpee at 7-11? There's almost certainly someone in that corporation who will share ever-so-slightly in the revenue your $0.98 of sugar water brought in.
Adding onto this, we all pay some forms of taxes one way or other and those taxes are sometimes used by govts to then either be lost in corruption or scandals or the govt itself spends it on something you might not appreciate if you know the full context of details (especially when they pertain to war)
> Ignore is not only bliss, but necessary.
It honestly depends on the time, if we as a society wants change, some amount of uncomfort is needed to better shape it for the needs/affordability of the average person but also a lot of people don't want to face that uncomfort so they wish to be ignorant partially being the reason that some of the issues are able to persist even in a democratic system
Not capitalism but rather in any globalized and industrialized reality I would think. Anything beyond cottage production and you very rapidly lose the ability to propagate blame.
I think home made cottage production of tech (similar to Open source) might be an interesting proposition though. Like we as a community should support small tech more favourably than big tech and I think in many cases small tech is even more price competitive (while remaining sensibly and not burning/having VC money of course) as compared to large big tech which sometimes might be profitable in short term but they lock in.
Everything combined, I feel like its the time for a movement/ genuine support towards indie web or small tech (passionate people making software that they themselves want/wanted)
> also has to turn it into a moral or ethical question so they can either feel better about it themselves,
You phrased this as an either-or thing, so I am actually genuinely curious....what exactly is wrong with this attitude?
We as people do a lot of things in our lives that probably don't make a difference, but that makes us feel better as individuals. Genuinely, what's the harm in cutting something out of your life because it makes you feel better?
I don't have any problem with not giving Adams just because you don't like him. Even if I think it's a bit silly, it's certainly your right, and while I would rather enjoy art I enjoy regardless of the artist's beliefs, not everyone feels that way and that's fine. What bothers me is the performative nature of it, having to tell everyone about it to let them know how good of a person you are, and acting like people with a different viewpoint are somehow lesser or worse.
Just look at this thread, several comments about "oh yeah that's what people without morals always say." As if whether someone spends $10 on an old book of Dilbert comics has far-reaching moral implications.
> What bothers me is the performative nature of it
I always find it funny how these sorts of things always seem to roll one way. You can be supportive of him all you like, but if you're going to distance yourself, do it quietly - preferably silently - and please don't say anything that might cause anyone to feel bad about it.
I will admit that I haven't read Dilbert regularly since the early 00's, and certainly not since Adams revealed his uglier side - but that has more to do with me finding out about and preferring Achewood's Roast Beef as my comic surrogate computer nerd.
Your link just redirects. I think the section linked below is better. I was surprised to learn that there's at least some amount of disagreement on the details depending on the context.
> One would therefore say "I drank the glass's contents" to indicate drinking from one glass, but "I drank the glasses' contents" after also drinking from another glass.
Every time I stop to appreciate these details that I never really have to think about I feel sorry for those forced to pick up English as a second language. Formal latin should have remained the language of academics and international trade. We really screwed up.
>Formal latin should have remained the language of academics and international trade. We really screwed up.
I think if formal Latin was really that great a language, it would have endured much longer. Latin is a horribly complicated language, and this is probably a big reason why "vulgar Latin" came about, and why Latin-influenced languages evolved from it (Spanish, French, Portuguese, etc.), yet were neither actual Latin themselves, nor as complicated.
There's a good reason English is so popular these days, and it's not just US dominance. English is a really easy language to learn poorly. It's hard to get all the little details right (like this apostrophe stuff), especially for formal writing, and it's hard to really master it, but it's really easy to learn it at a basic level and become decently conversational with it. You'll make lots of mistakes at this level, but it doesn't matter because with the way the language works, listeners will still understand you just fine. It's not like highly inflected languages where conjugating something incorrectly suddenly changes the meaning completely.
A complicated language like formal Latin makes sense if you want your language to be more like a rigid technical specification: it leaves much less room for ambiguity. But this is not at all easy for speakers of other languages to learn well enough as a 2nd language for international trade.
I sort of have to admire the kind of person that comes right out with "I have no firm principles or beliefs, and nobody else should either". That's certainly an ethos, I suppose.
Because yeah, if you can't imagine ever genuinely standing up for anything, of course the idea is gonna feel fake and embarrassing.
People genuinely feel his behavior sucked, dude, and it's not "performative" to say so, it's normal human social behavior. Shaming and scorn are powerful tools and we use them
to set norms.
So no, nobody cares if Scott Adams doesn't get $4 and has a sad. People care a lot about making it clear that egregious and ugly beliefs will be met with scorn. If that makes you feel bad, well, good. That's the point.
Nailed it. A notable behavior of people with weak morals / no principles is to loudly proclaim that other people with principles are "performative" or "virtue signaling".
And a notable behavior of performative virtue signaling bores is saying that anyone who doesn't share in the performance (even if they agree with them in principle) have weak morals and no principles.
It's funny to end a comment with "That's the point" when you so egregiously missed my point that I have to believe it's intentional and you're approaching this entire discussion in bad faith political hackery. Have a good day, but I doubt it.
It's important to note that the specific comments the NYT are referencing is when he was discussing a survey in which only 53% of black people surveyed agreed with the statement "It is okay to be white." He started discussing what happens to a society when nearly half of one race can't bring themselves to say it's okay to be a member of another race.
There are plenty of podcasts where plenty of people say truly racist things. Saying "47% of black people saying it's not okay to be white is a problem" is not one of them.
"You are a broken person" is not an appropriate response for someone engaging in a personal boycott. This is verbiage of flamebait and it really doesn't belong here.
"Ethical" is the wrong lens to see it through. I have only so much money to spend on art. I'd rather use it on something I wholeheartedly like. Ideally, something that wouldn't exist unless I supported it (art buyers, even if we are artists outselves, should not be "gilding the lily" and heap money on artists who don't need it).
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.
We are really chartering into utilitarian line of thinking here.
Nothing wrong with that and I may be overthinking but utilitarian line of thinking is the reason why a lot of issues actually happen because Politicians might promise something on an utilitarian premise where there real premise might be unknown.
Morals are certainly in question as well and where does one stop in the utilitarian line of thinking
But I overall agree with your statement and I wish to expand on it that if we are thinking about offsetting, one of the ideas can be to keep on buying even books written by many authors, overall aggregate can be net positive impact so perhaps we can treat it as a bank of sorts from which we can withdraw some impact.
> Politicians might promise something on an utilitarian premise where there real premise might be unknown.
At the risk of drifting off topic, what does it matter if you agree with the policy? If I want my member of Congress to vote yes on a particular issue, and they will vote yes, does it matter to me what their motives are?
Then again looking at the table, laptop, and protein drink in front of me, I know that many people were involved in making and shipping them. Some were quite possibly rapists, racists and/or worse.
That’s interesting analogy! With art, you re receiving something that’s not physically consumed but informs you or even changes your mind - depends how that art works for you.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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