Dilbert is now "trump metaphors: the comic"

Dilbert is now "trump metaphors: the comic"

Other urls found in this thread:

grist.org/series/skeptics/
grist.org/climate-energy/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I fail to understand how this is a trump metaphor

DEHUMANIaE YOURSELF AND FACE TO BLOODSHED

>Dilbert
>Wearing red

No. Just....no.

Did Trump move a server rack at some point?

You come here to wet your whistle?

the server rack is a metaphor for russia collusion

...

...

I expect a damn good payoff with all this build-up.

Ranch or cool ranch?

Are you sure it's not a metaphor for Clinton's emails?

No, it's not.

That's what happens when you write a comic strip at the same time as your novel about Trump's unexpected electoral success.

So he knows how to play to an audience? Seems like hes good at business.

The pay off is that Dilbert will constantly be hounded by these allegations until it's time for re-election. In that time no concrete evidence of any actual wrong doing will be found. However Dilbert will constantly put his foot in his mouth and look shady as fuck, which doesn't help the fact he's already an unpopular asshole. The people who wanted him to be guilty will assume he's guilty, the people who tied their boat to him will continue to make excuses. It'll become a major focus of the Election which his opposition should win but they would be stupid enough to run Alice again.

Dilbert updated to everyone wearing polos long ago. Engineers don't wear ties much anymore.

But Alice would just punch all the problems away.

>no concrete evidence of any actual wrong doing will be found.
Sure.

Which came first: ranch, or cool ranch?

scott adams is a joke anymore

he gets so mad at people calling him old on twitter that he posts shirtless selfies to them as an "own." The mans brain is made out of soup and soft cheeses

ranch

The color Orange was named after the fruit.

The man is a genius and a national treasure.

Which was named after the tree on which it grows.

Which is named after the old French word for fruit.

Theory confirmed. Dilbert killed the younglings.

This may come as a shock to you, but collusion=/=crime.

what do they mean by "Moved the Server Rack"?
I've worked on server racks before and none of them could be physically moved without a shit ton of effort and planning. Do they mean he moved it to a new IP address or something? Or do they just have a really small rack for internal use? This is highly confusing.

I think that's part of the joke. It's impossible he moved it without people noticing, but there is no proof he did it but people are still saying he did.

get it. embezzling

but the Server Rack has moved, Dilbert hasnt done it but who did!
Our investigation has hit a dead end. it's time to start over and find the real culprit

>Now where could my server rack be?
>GARFIELD!

There's a good reason he got into cartoons with half-assed art instead of actually having a successful engineering career.

As somebody who has never worked in IT, what is exactly so bad about moving a server rack?

...

>J-just because there's a lot of evidence that Trump colluded with Putin, doesn't mean there's evidence of collusion!
>tfw you used to love Dilbert, but now it's just alt-right rants that are about as funny as
Sooo... you're fine with a foreign dictator subverting democracy as long as you get a manchild who thinks there were "some good people" in a neo-Nazi protest, in charge of the most powerful country in the world?

because he made a shit ton more money?

...

>the sheer amount of bullshit and shilling in this post

bait/10 got me to reply

>Scott Adams
>not a trump supporter

At least do your research faggot

90% of Scott Adams posts about Trump are about how he's an extremely good manipulator and con-man and explainin how he does that. You can read that as support yeah.

...

Anybody remember when Dilbert was good?
>if I use a buzzword to pooh-pooh these facts, then I don't have to acknowledge reality!
Holy shit, the strawmanning in this is AMAZING... I can't even parse the sheer amount of smug, know-nothing bullshit contained in it, so here's a website to explain why Adams is being a dipshit
grist.org/series/skeptics/

>filenime
And the message is-?

I'll give you a hint: "economic models".

Climate change is a natural process that humans have no influence over.

Which was named after the region it doesn't.

I guess you're in the 99%.

That Al Gorebal Warming is a hoax and we don't need to spend a penny making the environment cleaner.

>Climate change is a Chinese hoax

Fixed that for you

t. rube

"Climate change isn't real, because of bullshit I made up"
grist.org/climate-energy/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Have you actually read that website you linked? Because it actually has the exact failings Adams pointed out the usual climate change proponents have.

For example it responds to "models aren't proved to work" by citing some models that works, while Adams critique is exactly that there are so many models that of course some got it right.

Went right over your head.

HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT HUT

That you're still operating under the assumption that Scott Adams denies climate change science means that you are, in fact, in the 99% that didn't parse what he was saying.

Because a long term successful engineering career requires not being a stubborn stupid smug asshole.

Don't link me those sites because I read enough articles disproving that claim and I won't change my mind.

I guess that's why you're not an engineer.

>Climate change is a natural process
correct
>that humans have no influence over
incorrect, We've sped up the cycle considerably

definitely not true

How big is your succesful engineer sample? two?

Not the one in the sixth panel.

That may be "a" message, but it's not THE message. Criticizing that point just shows that you're ignorant of the comic's REAL message.

>incorrect, We've sped up the cycle considerably

How much is "considerably"? Ten year? A hundred years, A thousand years?

>the comic's REAL message.

That kneeling during the national anthem is treason?

>That kneeling during the national anthem is treason?

Even if it isn't it still doing great for all the public approval and audience increase.

I followed that whole debacle pretty heavily.

I understand Adams is making non-judgemental observations but the reason why everyone is so pissed at him is because he refuses to attach a moral opinion to any of it.

I got the same impression listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson when he was approached about politics. While I admire Tyson for refusing to politicize science, he feels his only role is to push science and to never lend his credibility to put someone down. People who look to science as a primal guiding force in human advancement would look to Tyson for his advice on the going-ons in our society regarding how to vote and such and he remains mum on the matter.

I find it really weird. People like Tyson and Adams are like these half-leaders. They have ideas that attract people but the moment you demand of them to tell you how those ideas can be used towards something they remain neutral. They're not exactly armchair speakers because they're experts in something. It's understandable they don't want that drama in their lives but the fact they have an audience I think it's kinda a dick move to refuse to use that faith to help guide their audience to a place they probably personally feel is a better world.

For the most part I feel like if people aren't willing to make a moral judgement about something they should just shut up or go back to being a quiet scientist in a lab somewhere.

This is some pretty good bait.

Scott Adams supports Kaepernick though.

Do you really need someone else to make your decisions for you?

That's because being "a scientist" or "an engineer" doesn't mean you have valid political opinions. Both of them are smart enough to know this.

>incorrect, We've sped up the cycle considerably
Nonsense.

...

>They have ideas that attract people but the moment you demand of them to tell you how those ideas can be used towards something they remain neutral.
It's almost like they want people to think for themselves or something.

Nope.

>audience increase
Who the fuck is going to start watching sports just to watch some athletes sing the anthem while kneeling.

I promise you that the people in the marketing and PR departments are groaning at how this is the worst fucking press imaginable that accomplishes nothing. At best this is going to fracture their audience moreso than unify it; because whatever fucking "boost" comes of all this it's going to be offset by all the people you lose. And you are going to lose people.

Nobody with a fucking brain thinks this is a good thing. This is identical to the retards who think appealing to SJW in your video game is going to drive sales. No, you fucking idiots those morons don't buy goddamn video games. Likewise whoever comes to the sport to celebrate the athlete-celebrities for this meaningless protest aren't going to stick around when the hubub dies down and they find a new rallying point to bandwagon.

Adams actually addresses this

He figured people are smart enough to work out the moral issues on their own.

Of course "certain" people aren't and they demand all of the experts in a subject also be an expert in the morality of that subject. They want a Pope. Someone to tell them how to live their lives. They get their sense of ethics from late night comedy and twitter. Frankly, it's pathetic and laughably sad.

I don't think you're really getting what Scott is, generally, attempting to do. He doesn't want to be a moral leader, or really a leader in general, that much is true. What he tries to do is provide the tools necessary for OTHER people to lead via persuasion. His entire ongoing conversation around the climate change debate is literally based entirely around attempting to urge climate scientists to become more persuasive in their explanations and the manner in which they present their findings to the public, but for some reason people instead read it as him denying climate science.

As mentioned, just being smart or educated in one field does not suddenly make them an expert in other, unrelated fields. Scott Adams routinely and explicitly states when something he's discussing is not within his area of expertise and that he's merely talking about it from the perspective of a layman, and that is really important. I highly recommend reading Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" if you're interested in a more in-depth analysis of what happens when experts in one field attempt to use their credibility to give their words weight in matters they have little to no practical experience in.

>neil degrasse tyson
>refusing to use science as a political weapon

I don't know who he's paying to man his twitter account, but he should get him to work on the comics too.

Dude that was sarcasm

>He figured people are smart enough to work out the moral issues on their own.
No, in regards to this, I can't accept that. He's dipped his toes into a tendril of a cesspool that is composed of 100% moral issues. Even if his training in psychology and hypnotism are separate from the ethics and morals, it's attached to a highly emotional subject matter. He does not come from a position as a person representing the sciences, he is coming from a position as a public figure and for that he has to throw down, the fact he does outreach through the blog to the audience demands that,

I find his faith in people figuring out moral issues on their own completely ridiculous. People are fucking stupid, which is why Popes for the most part are useful. Maybe you or I are strong enough to do some thinking for the most part but people and the mob in general are complete retards. The mob demanded of him to step up and it's fine if he refuses; except he has to shut up because he's doing nothing besides muddying the discussion, and he must know that.

He's probably correct that the people who read his comic are smart enough to get it, but his audience expanded the moment the nutbars from both sides of the political spectrum got him in their crosshairs. And at that moment the only elegant thing is to just back off and not feed the trolling and mudslinging while being at the center of it. Him saying he doesn't have a dog in the fight doesn't matter because he's standing in the middle of it, and he's going to get dirty because of it.

I find the idea that you believe he should just shut up and become a social recluse because he doesn't want to be a moral leader, but instead provide people with the tools and motivation they need to lead, to be a little disturbing.

>How dare someone try to actually educate people instead of just telling them what to do, what to think and how to feel
How's that boot taste?

This kind of thinking you have is what led to the stupid shit that happened in the last three years.

OP is one of those whiny conservatives who complain any time any medium presents them with a different opinion
Crawl back to Sup Forums you shit

BTFO

>If someone so much as glances at an issue, they are REQUIRED to form a complete opinion and position on it and if they don't they are WRONG!!!
It's amazing seeing the bizarre logic people try to pull together to make a cartoonist seem like a bad man for stating something that's pretty obvious.

I'm guessing this is from the same school of logic as "If you aren't with us, you are against us"?

I think he's implying that Dilbert is being Pro-Trump

So you think that self-proclaimed "true fans", who allegedly just like them for what they are and don't want politics polluting them, are going to make a big show of loudly stomping out the door because it politically offends them and claiming that it's a personal attack on the "true fans" and that the execs should know better than to not cater to them, before deciding to boycott it until they get what they want?

To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened.

>being proven 100% right about his analysis is "mudddying the discussion", therefore he should stop being right and shut up.

You are one retarded fucker.

>I'm guessing this is from the same school of logic as "If you aren't with us, you are against us"?

Sure looks like it. Which honestly explains a lot of things in the last three years. Actually no, I'm wrong about it being three years. Probably was growing longer before that, maybe at least six years or more.

Nobody really knows.

I'm not going to support people who pointlessly disrespect the country, for the sole purpose of gaining radical leftist brownie points, over the completely fabricated issue of "police brutality".

To be honest, is there any point in not trying to lower climate change? If climate change is real, then you're doing good. If it's wrong, I mean pumping chemicals into the air, using up our natural resources, and not recycling isn't going to really be much better.

Wait, it's over police brutality? I thought it was about Trump.

I'm all for it on the sole condition that the people pushing for making sweeping structural changes to alleviate climate change put the full force of their support behind nuclear or thorium-based alternative power instead of the wind and solar meme.

It's ironic.
It was about police brutality, Trump got pissy and bitched about disrespectin' the anthem and America, so then everybody basically jumped on to resist Trump.

Kapernick outright said it was over police brutality. And he's well within his rights for doing it.