Can we talk about Scott Adams/Dilbert?

[Dan Murphy]

Most people get their world affairs and politics information digitally.

I do that in addition to.

 

[tom1944]

I liked it better when I could read his comic without any idea he was a racist moron.

 

[_19disnA]

He should fit right in on twitter.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

First thing I thought was this is old news, he has been known for many years to have awful comments not just about racism but about other things including political and the state of males in today's society (i.e. woe is me type talk).

He's not a person people should be defending. It's disappointing action wasn't taken before, it's not like he just started spouting his gross words.

 

[MamaMermaid]

Sounds like a jerk. I think they're justified to pull the strip.

 

[Her Dotness]

The NY Yankees discontinued use of the recording of Kate Smith's "God Bless America" because she sang two songs very early in her career that are highly racist by today's standards. Nevermind that famed black tenor Paul Robeson himself recorded one of the songs. Or, that there's nothing whatsoever racist about Smith's rendition of "God Bless America."

The publisher of Roald Dahl's many children's books recently announced that sensitivity editing was being done to remove body-shaming and racist labels from those books, replacing them with currently approved language. New editions will include these alterations. (However, as a result of widespread objections, a set of the books using the original language will remain available.)

And now, Scott Adams... Someone can be a disagreeable or loathsome person while nevertheless producing work that entertains or inspires many.

I wish we as a society could manage to separate the person's views from their works. And, where there is bleedthrough, use those works as examples of the sort of expression we consider offensive and wrong.

Maybe eventually we'll grow up enough to do that?

 

[John VN]

Words can indeed hurt and be hurtful. I don't care for his kind of words NO MATTER how they might be used. MEANING, not even in a joking around situation.

 

[persnickity]

The NY Yankees discontinued use of the recording of Kate Smith's "God Bless America" because she sang two songs very early in her career that are highly racist by today's standards. Nevermind that famed black tenor Paul Robeson himself recorded one of the songs. Or, that there's nothing whatsoever racist about Smith's rendition of "God Bless America."

The publisher of Roald Dahl's many children's books recently announced that sensitivity editing was being done to remove body-shaming and racist labels from those books, replacing them with currently approved language. New editions will include these alterations. (However, as a result of widespread objections, a set of the books using the original language will remain available.)

And now, Scott Adams... Someone can be a disagreeable or loathsome person while nevertheless producing work that entertains or inspires many.

I wish we as a society could manage to separate the person's views from their works. And, where there is bleedthrough, use those works as examples of the sort of expression we consider offensive and wrong.

Maybe eventually we'll grow up enough to do that?

On the other hand, there are so many talented and amazing artists in the world that will never receive the attention or praise that they deserve - so why continue elevating people who espouse hate?

 

[jrmasm]

The NY Yankees discontinued use of the recording of Kate Smith's "God Bless America" because she sang two songs very early in her career that are highly racist by today's standards. Nevermind that famed black tenor Paul Robeson himself recorded one of the songs. Or, that there's nothing whatsoever racist about Smith's rendition of "God Bless America."

The publisher of Roald Dahl's many children's books recently announced that sensitivity editing was being done to remove body-shaming and racist labels from those books, replacing them with currently approved language. New editions will include these alterations. (However, as a result of widespread objections, a set of the books using the original language will remain available.)

And now, Scott Adams... Someone can be a disagreeable or loathsome person while nevertheless producing work that entertains or inspires many.

I wish we as a society could manage to separate the person's views from their works. And, where there is bleedthrough, use those works as examples of the sort of expression we consider offensive and wrong.

Maybe eventually we'll grow up enough to do that?

We are growing up and no longer tolerating hate speech.

 

[Smugpugmug]

I wish we as a society could manage to separate the person's views from their works. And, where there is bleedthrough, use those works as examples of the sort of expression we consider offensive and wrong.

I think there is a distinction when the author is profiting off of their work vs if they're deceased. H.P. Lovecraft was well known to be very racist (very racist is an understatement. Look it up for yourself). but you can separate him from his works because he's well.....deceased. Scott Adams is very well alive and can profit from his bigotry.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I wish we as a society could manage to separate the person's views from their works.

As a cartoonist he expresses things through is works, how he views the world around him and his dissatisfaction with it. Can you really separate a person's views when those views are inspiration for their work?

 

[Kaleidodad]

Dilbert stopped being funny or original decades ago. It appears the comic strip stopped being a productive outlet for Adams's frustrations with contemporary life and he turned into the bitter and angry old man we see today.

 

[Allison]

And now, Scott Adams... Someone can be a disagreeable or loathsome person while nevertheless producing work that entertains or inspires many.

I wish we as a society could manage to separate the person's views from their works. And, where there is bleedthrough, use those works as examples of the sort of expression we consider offensive and wrong.

There are some things that cross the line into being so far into the unacceptable range that it should not be supported in any way. This situation is one of those cases.

 

[BrianL]

I think there is a distinction when the author is profiting off of their work vs if they're deceased. H.P. Lovecraft was well known to be very racist (very racist is an understatement. Look it up for yourself). but you can separate him from his works because he's well.....deceased. Scott Adams is very well alive and can profit from his bigotry.

That's a valid point, however I don't think editing previous works is the answer. Either the work contains offensive terminology and ideas or it doesnt. If it does, should we still be lauding it and make changes to make it more "appropriate" or shouldn't we just reject them altogether?

 

[Smugpugmug]

That's a valid point, however I don't think editing previous works is the answer. Either the work contains offensive terminology and ideas or it doesnt. If it does, should we still be lauding it and make changes to make it more "appropriate" or shouldn't we just reject them altogether?

I didn't say anything about editing previous works. I actually think it's silly for Roald Dahl's works to be edited for example. I think a work should be presented the way it was originally published and for there to be a dialogue about it rather than censoring it. I was only responding to the notion of "separating the author from the work" and why that doesn't work in some cases.

 

[MrsCobraBubbles]

Lol, this could easily be a post that is going to get us all some points so I'm going to be careful because my Grammy always cautioned me about discussing politics and religion and sometimes I'm smart enough to listen to her advice so I'm not going to address my personal opinions about what was quoted and maybe then this post will stay up.

But regardless of what any of us thinks about his statements, I think it's stupid for any person who makes their living based on being congenial and relatable to the masses to knowingly offend and alienate any part of the masses and not expect backlash. And that includes the author of a popular, syndicated comic strip--it's not a political cartoon and he shouldn't be throwing his hat into that ring. I honestly do think it's deserved when this comes back on any celebrity because their celebrity status presents them with a platform and they need to be more aware of how they speak about things than us peons do. So if you want to continue to make money from the masses then you shut your mouth and keep your polarizing opinions to yourself. I know some people disagree with "cancel culture" but that's the world we live in now. Information is free, readily available, and can spread across the globe in the blink of an eye. I do sometimes feel bad for celebrities when I think they may have just lost their temper or have been misquoted, but I don't think that's the case here, he was very clear in what he was saying.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

The NY Yankees discontinued use of the recording of Kate Smith's "God Bless America" because she sang two songs very early in her career that are highly racist by today's standards. Nevermind that famed black tenor Paul Robeson himself recorded one of the songs. Or, that there's nothing whatsoever racist about Smith's rendition of "God Bless America."

The publisher of Roald Dahl's many children's books recently announced that sensitivity editing was being done to remove body-shaming and racist labels from those books, replacing them with currently approved language. New editions will include these alterations. (However, as a result of widespread objections, a set of the books using the original language will remain available.)

And now, Scott Adams... Someone can be a disagreeable or loathsome person while nevertheless producing work that entertains or inspires many.

I wish we as a society could manage to separate the person's views from their works. And, where there is bleedthrough, use those works as examples of the sort of expression we consider offensive and wrong.

Maybe eventually we'll grow up enough to do that?

For me, it’s simply that a black cloud starts to hang over someone’s body of work when I learn things about them that I find distasteful or morally disagreeable. I’m not looking to “cancel” someone — though I often have no pity for them if that’s what happens as a result of their actions — I just can’t enjoy their whatever-it-is as much as I did before it became associated with their negativity.

For example, I’m never again going to be able watch the Cosby Show without thinking about Cosby’s crimes. Yes, I grew up on the show and enjoyed it and I can still recognize that it was instrumental in its time for changing perceptions of black families… but then there’s that whole serial rape thing and it’s no longer light-hearted, feel-good entertainment for me. Likewise, R. Kelly’s music isn’t as fun to sing along to as it used to be and every time Chris Brown comes on the radio I get an image of Rihanna’s battered face in my mind.

Entertainment should be entertaining. I want to enjoy the books, music, tv, movies, and comic strips that I consume and I can’t do that if one half of my brain is having to convince myself to ignore the morally reprehensible elephant in the room. (And I especially don’t want to financially support those artists and further prop up their platform.) So, I naturally gravitate away from their body of work on to someone else whose art I can enjoy without all the baggage.

I disagree with the idea that growing up means we bury our heads in the sand and ignore things we find offensive and wrong. IMO, it shows a lot more growth to find your voice, speak your mind, and stand up for what’s right, especially on behalf of others.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Says it all.

Dilbert was at one point a nice strip. It really caught the IT department culture and lampooned it. But gradually, it became bitter rather than funny and I stopped bothering with it for better comics. As for Adams, somewhere along the line he abandoned reason for madness. The reality is Adams erased himself.

The NY Yankees discontinued use of the recording of Kate Smith's "God Bless America" because she sang two songs very early in her career that are highly racist by today's standards. Nevermind that famed black tenor Paul Robeson himself recorded one of the songs. Or, that there's nothing whatsoever racist about Smith's rendition of "God Bless America."

The publisher of Roald Dahl's many children's books recently announced that sensitivity editing was being done to remove body-shaming and racist labels from those books, replacing them with currently approved language. New editions will include these alterations. (However, as a result of widespread objections, a set of the books using the original language will remain available.)

And now, Scott Adams... Someone can be a disagreeable or loathsome person while nevertheless producing work that entertains or inspires many.

I wish we as a society could manage to separate the person's views from their works. And, where there is bleedthrough, use those works as examples of the sort of expression we consider offensive and wrong.

Maybe eventually we'll grow up enough to do that?

Scott Adams Racist rants are some of his works. And Adams defined himself with his own actions and made it such with his pod cast. I'm quite sure he'll blame everyone but himself and claim he's the victim. But bigots don't play the martyr well.

He should fit right in on twitter.

I heard it's a great source of DIS information.

 

[csimon]

I wish we as a society could manage to separate the person's views from their works. And, where there is bleedthrough, use those works as examples of the sort of expression we consider offensive and wrong.

Maybe eventually we'll grow up enough to do that?

Could you work with someone who was known to be hostile to your gender, a mysogonist etc, who expressed those views frequently? Or would you be happy to be told to grow up if you objected?

 

[Karin1984]

4 pages already, more than I expected.

This morning I read in a discussion about a controversial play in the UK: separate art from the artist is only possible once the artist is dead.