zlacker

[return to "Dilbert creator Scott Adams says he will die soon from same cancer as Joe Biden"]
1. ravens+A8[view] [source] 2025-05-19 17:38:30
>>dale_h+(OP)
That would explain his rather obvious lack of energy these days.

Adams has become a controversial figure in recent years. Regardless of what you think of him, as someone who has worked in Corporate America for over a decade, there really isn't anything quite like Dilbert to describe the sort of white collar insanity I've had to learn to take in stride. My first workplace as a junior developer was straight out of Dilbert and Office Space. I have a gigantic collection of digitized Dilbert strips that best describe office situations I've run into in real life – many of them including the pointy haired boss.

He's expressed a lot of what I would consider... stupid opinions these days, but I would be sad to learn he's no longer with us.

◧◩
2. ActorN+ri[view] [source] 2025-05-19 18:26:51
>>ravens+A8
>Adams has become a controversial figure in recent years.

He has had some questionable views all throughout his life. In his book "The Dilbert Future", which was from 1997, the last 2 chapters are some wacky stuff about manifesting - i.e if you write something down 100 times a day every day it will come true and other stuff like that.

And while that may seem a far cry from the alt-right stuff he eschews, its really not - inability to process information clearly and think in reality in lieu of ideology is the cornerstone of conservative thinking.

◧◩◪
3. kubb+3L[view] [source] 2025-05-19 21:03:08
>>ActorN+ri
The claim that conservatism is rooted in an inability to process reality is a misrepresentation.

The actual cornerstone of conservatism is an instinctual preference for stability, order, and the familiar. The danger arises when this instinct is hijacked by a rigid ideology that resists truth and seeks control rather than continuity.

Which is, you know, what the American right is doing.

◧◩◪◨
4. LordDr+LO[view] [source] 2025-05-19 21:27:16
>>kubb+3L
Staunch adherence to the familiar in a changing world is dangerous in-and-of itself. It is inherently anti-science.

And "order" doesn't fully capture it either, because the concept it gestures at can be more accurately described as "hierarchy" - as Kirk puts it, "a conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions".

In other words, everyone has a proper place in society, with some above and others below, and any attempts to remove that hierarchy are moral wrongs which require the transgressors to be put back in their place.

You can see how that core belief is intrinsically dangerous, and how nearly every controversial conservative belief about social classes falls out of it.

(It's also worth noting that this explains why conservatism's earliest champions were supporters of the aristocracy, and also why conservatism is more beloved by the old-money wealthy than move-fast-and-break-things new-money tech.)

[go to top]