zlacker

[return to "Scott Adams has died"]
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.

◧◩
2. stetra+TD[view] [source] 2026-01-13 18:56:48
>>jchall+z3
I think it’s interesting how many responses to this comment seem to have interpreted it fairly differently to my own reading.

There are many responding about “ignoring racism,” “whitewashing,” or the importance of calling out bigotry.

I’m not sure how that follows from a comment that literally calls out the racism and describes it as “unambiguous.”

Striving to “avoid the ugliness” in your own life does not mean ignoring it or refusing to call it out.

◧◩◪
3. _carby+RD1[view] [source] 2026-01-13 23:09:26
>>stetra+TD
Ironically, a whole bunch of people have spent their formative years in a cancel-culture world and this now shapes their actions.

But at an art gallery, Picasso is near worshipped despite his torrid misogyny and abuse in his personal life which was terrible even by the standards of his day. The views on his art were formed at a time before cancel-culture was a thing.

Realising:

- everyone has performed good and bad actions

- having performed a good action doesn't "make up for or cancel out" a bad action. You can save thousands of people, but murdering someone still should mean a life sentence.

- you can be appreciated for your good actions while your bad actions still stand.

: all these take some life experience and perhaps significant thought on the concepts.

◧◩◪◨
4. hexer2+IK1[view] [source] 2026-01-13 23:44:16
>>_carby+RD1
> You can save thousands of people, but murdering someone still should mean a life sentence.

I've struggled with this point of view since my early teens, and possibly even earlier. There is no amount of good one can do to compensate for even the slightest misdeed.

As much as I may agree, however, it's probably the most damaging and destructive moral framework you can possibly have, because it just consumes anything positive.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. skeete+UV1[view] [source] 2026-01-14 00:51:05
>>hexer2+IK1
forget about murder, you make a terrible comment or single mistake in your young adulthood and you are done for ever. Kids are not allowed to make mistakes anymore.
[go to top]