zlacker

[return to "Scott Adams has died"]
â—§
1. jchall+z3[view] [source] 2026-01-13 16:53:32
>>schmuc+(OP)
Scott Adams died today. I want to acknowledge something complicated.

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.

His views, always unapologetic, became more strident over time and pushed everyone away. That also felt like family.

You don’t choose family, and you don’t get to edit out the parts that shaped you before you understood what was happening. The racism and the provocations were always there, maybe, just quieter. The 2023 comments that ended Dilbert’s newspaper run were unambiguous.

For Scott, like family, I’m a better person for the contribution. I hope I can represent the good things: the humor, the clarity of thought, the compounding good habits with health and money. I can avoid the ugliness—the racism, the grievance, the need to be right at any cost.

Taking inventory is harder than eulogizing or denouncing. But it’s more honest.

â—§â—©
2. spanka+Pc[view] [source] 2026-01-13 17:22:25
>>jchall+z3
I don't get "avoiding the ugliness" when someone dies. We need to acknowledge the ugliness and try to do better.

Acting like "oh, he was trolling", or "it was just a small amount of hating Black people and women" is exactly how you get Steven Miller in the fucking White House.

We need to make it shameful to be bigoted again, and that means calling out the bigotry even in death.

â—§â—©â—ª
3. RajT88+zn[view] [source] 2026-01-13 17:56:47
>>spanka+Pc
The thinking is that not "speaking ill of the dead" is not just respect, but doing anything else is pointless.

You will not change them, and everyone present already made up their mind on their behavior.

◧◩◪◨
4. Araina+Yp[view] [source] 2026-01-13 18:05:40
>>RajT88+zn
They didn't, though. Plenty of people who had one reputation at their death have had that reputation change over time, especially with more information and awareness of what they did. Sometimes their reputations improve, sometimes they decline.

Speaking only positively about people distorts the reality.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. revnod+Bz[view] [source] 2026-01-13 18:41:05
>>Araina+Yp
Why is their reputation relevant? They're dead.

Reputation guides your behavior toward that person. But they're no longer around. There is no behavior toward them. They're gone. Their reputation is no longer relevant.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. JadeNB+3B[view] [source] 2026-01-13 18:46:43
>>revnod+Bz
> Reputation guides your behavior toward that person. But they're no longer around. There is no behavior toward them. They're gone. Their reputation is no longer relevant.

It also culturally informs someone's perceived suitability as a role model. It doesn't matter to the dead person if they are held in high or low esteem, but it may matter to people in their formative stages deciding whose influence they follow and whose they shun.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. RajT88+VE[view] [source] 2026-01-13 18:59:48
>>JadeNB+3B
I'm not saying it's right to not "speak ill of the dead". Just that that's the reasoning I've seen in my family.
[go to top]