zlacker

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.

>>jchall+(OP)
This comment reminds me of when I talked to a few Chinese friends about their thoughts on Mao. They all acknowledged the failed policies which led to famine, yet they also admired that he basically gave Chinese people their pride back.

They related him to an uncle figure who became a mean drunk.

>>throw4+Z4
Pride made it worth it?!

>>k__+ub
Having married a Chinese person. Yes. Despite the massive issues with the cultural revolution and communism in general, they are taught to be aware that it was Mao who threw off imperialism. Chinese are self governing because of him. Right or wrong, that is how they feel.

>>godzil+7c
I think it's possible to throw off the yoke of imperialism without then promptly dipping right into totalitarianism.

>>aaronb+Gd
Far more Chinese think that their country is a democracy and the government serves the people than in the US.

Whether this is objectively true is another question, but from their perspective, that's what it is.

>>chitha+Wj
I can hear the argument that the Chinese government serves their people better than the US gov. Not necessarily agree with it but it's worth discussing.

However I don't know by what definition of democracy a country with a unique party, with so little freedom of press, can be considered as one.

>>eloisa+bE
A 1 party system can still be democratic in a way. Just participation in the policymaking works differently. In China this is feedback from the public and local committees.

Also that freedom of speech is very limited is correct, and there is extensive online censorship. But that doesn't mean the government ignores what people think. Almost all domestic government policies are broadly supported by the population. And when public opposition is strong then the government is known to delay implementation or change course.

Notable examples are Covid Zero, the K Visa, and the reclassification of drug use offenses.

>>chitha+lT1
'Look, democratic centralism has the word democratic right there in it. How can it NOT be democratic?'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism

>>aaronb+cy6
In China the participatory model works and citizens overwhelmingly approve of the outcomes (when it comes to domestic policy).

In US, which is a liberal democracy, you have outcomes like 20% satisfaction with Congress, yet >90% incumbent reelection rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_th...

I'm not saying everything is good and democratic in China and bad in the US, but the answer is a bit more nuanced than some people here like to think.