There’s also the implication that this guy quit just when “The most successful entrepreneur in the history of civilization” was going to make the company super-successful, when in actuality, Musk has made Twitter tank faster than anyone thought possible. There’s just a huge gap between what SA perceives and reality, because he’s letting his bias affect everything.
If you look into what working for Musk is really like, it’s clear that he’s a classic pointy-haired boss, but somehow the guy who invented the pointy-haired boss can’t see it.
I think you might be reading a bit much into that; it seems possible to me that he’d meant something like, near the end of the last classroom session, one of my students mentioned that he thought X — which, as it happens, is the topic I was already planning to cover in our next class, because it’s a common misconception that I take a little time to debunk each semester — and, from the number of nodding heads I saw when he was putting that out there, I figure it’ll be more of a revelation to this latest batch of students than it was to the last batch, and to the batch before that. Of course, I’d still cover it even if only one or two students believed it; but it seems noteworthy that the belief now seems to be so widespread…
The PHB is just another lazy employee; he simply outranks Dilbert, Wally, and Alice. (It’s pretty clear he’s not very high up in the company; may higher bosses make appearances.) He’s stupid but isn’t megalomaniacal.
I’m sure Adams at some point has written gags about egomaniacal tech billionaires, so yeah, it’s mystifying he cannot recognize one when he sees one.
I got the sense a long time ago that Adams was a clever and witty humorist - he really was extremely funny. He’s not super BRIGHT, though, and has had some very long standing emotional issues with women. I am reminded of the things he wrote about how gravity cannot possible be discerned from things doubling in size every 9.8 seconds or whatever it is - an idea that instantly tells you Adams does not know the difference between volume and mass, or if he does, which one affects gravity.
Could be that too. Honestly there are probably others he could be talking about. As I said earlier, I think Dilbert usually keeps things pretty generic so you can apply a story to multiple people/places/etc.
That’s one of the appeals of the strip since the beginning. It is relatable to almost anyone with experience working in an office environment. That’s why it’s a shame when things get political and/or specific (like the latest few entries). It loses the appeal that has made it successful for so long.
I no longer read daily cartoons, but did follow the OP’s Dilbert link; I browsed through 6 or 7 recent strips, and Adam’s batting average was respectable — way above other newspaper strips I remember from 10 years ago. (But yeah, his personal politics are stupid.)
Every time I have to fill out a bug report that requires me to assess the impact of the bug, I want to say the impact is “a plague of locusts o’er the land”.
Right-wingers believe Twitter was full of liberals who were deviously and secretly manipulating the public conversation by censoring conservatives, going so far as to claim that this is “election interference.” They also believe that Musk is their “white knight” who bought Twitter to squash all the liberal liars (and they’re probably right about this).
So the strip is about Adams flogging that dead horse, insinuating that Twitter was full of smug lying liberal hipsters until Musk took over, and now it’s all better.
So, I’ve been able to exist pretty comfortably just thinking Twitter is nothing I’m interested in, was pleased when they banned Trump, and heard that Musk was reducing filters and seemed to have lost a ton of value. Had no idea people thought/claimed it was some liberal conspiracy.
Even with the explanations you guys have offered, I’m still not seeing grounds for offense. So Dilbert is saying the internal communications are being censored - that’s reflects some claim that Twitter was censoring - who? Everyone or just conservatives? Because if only conservatives, why would the ex-Twitter employees be censoring Dilbert?
And the mention of meditation - I dunno. Just thought it aimed at touchy feely newagers, or maybe some weird employee perks I vaguely heard about at some tech companies.
This discussion is increasing my prior belief that some people who complain about unfair treatment perceive it because they are working damned hard to find it. I admit I am really out of touch in terms of social media - which is how I like it.
And it it’s clear that he thinks the twitter employees were so proud of lying that they would be personally offended by even implying that they might not be professional liars, or might have ethical qualms about lying.
The right has been claiming that Twitter has been censoring them for years now. It’s like the one guy that keeps assaulting people keeps claiming that the authorities are singling him out. In reality, Twitter has been trying to fight against dangerous information and incendiary calls for violence. If the right is the side doing all of that, well then they’re going to be the ones most affected by it.
Again, that’s because…
If you don’t know much about Twitter, you’re not going to understand what anyone is talking about here. But if you’re talking about Twitter censoring people, that talk is going to be about conservatives, it’s a reference to that. If someone wrote a comic strip where a drinking fountain in Alabama in the 50s was limited regarding who could use it, if you knew anything about history you would know that it’s about racism. Even if the comic strip didn’t make it explicit. It’s the same thing here.
Or they perceive it because fairness disadvantages them. Criminals think the law is unfair because it punishes them. Racists think the same thing about civil rights legislation. Sometimes someone feels that they’re treated unfairly because they deserve to be treated badly.
It doesn’t turn up in the official online Dilbert collection, but this is it from another source. It must be really old because the PHB hasn’t yet evolved pointy hair …
That’s because it wasn’t from the daily strip, but from one of his early books of non-daily-strip material, “Build a Better Life by Stealing Office Supplies”.
This is my favorite Dilbert comic of all time. It’s probably one of my favorite comic strip moments ever. I often think about it when some really stupid change happens at work, being pushed down from out-of-touch people far removed from the effects of the change.
I work for a government agency, so I think about it often.
Yes, I bought those way back when they came out, when I was in my first job. They were on the same shelf as Matt Groening’s books, otherwise I probably wouldn’t have noticed them.
This is understandable. I was the same until 2016 or so. And what I learned at that point is that while Twitter isn’t traditional journalism, or a traditional media outlet, it is very much a public forum where public figures (politicians and just plain famous people) make important and consequential statements, and the general public discusses them.
In 1980, if you only got your news from your small-town newspaper, and not TV or a major market newspaper, you’d be pretty in the dark about what’s going on. Likewise, in 2023, this is equally true of social media, and most of all Twitter. If you’re not on it, you’re missing large and consequential parts of the public conversation.
There is nothing in this strip that is “grounds for offense.” Nobody in this thread said that. You were the first to make that statement, apparently from excitement at an opportunity to grouse about how people are too easily offended nowadays.
The statement being made about the Dilbert strip is that Adams is repeating paranoid right-wing grievances. In this case, the paranoid right-wing grievance is that Twitter was a swamp of censorious liars (were, until Musk rode to the rescue and “drained the swamp”. The tipoff is the character saying in effect “I am a skilled liar and I worked at Twitter until Musk took over.” That’s the entire schtick, the suggestion that Twitter employees were a bunch of smug censorious liars, and Musk gave them a well-deserved smackdown.
And no, the political context is not in the strip. It’s referencing context external to the strip. You didn’t know the context at first, so the strip seemed like nonsense. I’ve now provided you with the context, so if you wanted, you could make sense of it. But that’s not your agenda here; your agenda seems to be pounding the table that people get too offended nowadays, and that you don’t really give a rip what happens on Twitter.
Which is fine, but you now have all the information required to comprehend the reference, so you could stop pretending that it’s simply incomprehensible.
