Was Dilbert a brilliantly average cartoon?

>>87191986
It was okay. The creator's pretty insane now, though.

File: Dil fun.webm (655KB, 716x540px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 716x540px

>>87191986
it was ahead of it's time

>>87192000
But cartoons nowadays don't deliver the same kind of humor Dilbert gave when it had it's run.

>>87191992
Man, whatever happened to Scott Adams? How did he become so crazy?

>>87193149
I'm currently reading his book. It's not bad imo. But holy shit I think it's putting me in an endless loop on how I can be a better person and manage my life and turn shit into something useful for my future. If I have to compare stubbing my toe to fertilizer one more time I feel like my head is going to explode

>>87191992
He's just goofing around.

>>87192027
Not really. What cartoons satirize the workpalce these days?

File: dilbert meets an SJW.gif (122KB, 900x280px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 900x280px

>>87191992
>>87193149
How is he crazy? His comics are just as on point about the modern workplace as they were 25 years ago.

>>87191992
Yeah, he's part of 50% of the US population. Which is to say, he wears jodhpurs and spends all day goosestepping and barbecuing ethnic babies.

>>87194489
He is voting for the Republican candidate. I think that's a symptom of mental illness, according to the Serbsky Institute circa 1980.

>>87194515
>>Serbsky Institute

>google it
>laugh

Yeah, that's probably why. Sad how the left-wing has become the intolerant half of politics.

>>87194515
are you the guy with the hat I keep hearing about?

>>87194489
He thinks twitter (the company) is against him because he got little retwit.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152204980091/twitter-and-periscope-shadowban-update

>>87194705
Given Twitter's recent behavior and their formation of a "Trust and Safety Council" consisting of some of the most hypocritical and censorious SJWs on the internet, there's a good chance he's right.

>>87194893
Yeah, twitter, the place where eveybody get harrassed and the company does barely anything to stop it, is censoring the author of Dilbert...

File: 706.gif (3MB, 400x169px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x169px

>>87193212
If it's the "Dilbert Principle" it is really good, but, if I remember correctly, the last chapter veers off into crazy town by extolling the virtues of positive self affirmation in a really bizarre, kinda new-agey way. Like, "writing down the things you want and visualizing them literally affects changes in reality because of the positive energy you're sending out." It's been over a decade so maybe I'm misremembering it in some part, but I'm reasonably sure it was The Dilbert Principle.

All in all I enjoy Dilbert, both the comic and the show, but the previously mentioned weirdness and his political leanings have tarnished that, somewhat. It's been a good lesson, though: Never learn too much about the creators of the things you like.

>>87195064
Exactly. They've recently shown a clear pattern of banning verified right-wing twitters for wrongthink while ignoring SJWs acting far worse.

Not surprising, giving the latter group has connections with the ownership and the former group doesn't.

>>87191986
Compared with what was on then? It was smarter than most of its sitcom contemporaries (Frasier is it's only real live action contender and was just beginning its slide into mediocrity), but cartoons of that time were really going strong. Futurama and Family Guy had just begun, it was the last quality season of The Simpsons, Mission Hill was on at that time, King of the Hill was just hitting its stride.

It was a perfectly fine show that got shoved aside in the glut of groundbreaking or otherwise really good adult animation that existed at the time or came right after.

I think that the show would have decent success now with minimal updates, but that might be personal preference.

>>87195132
>If it's the "Dilbert Principle" it is really good, but, if I remember correctly, the last chapter veers off into crazy town by extolling the virtues of positive self affirmation in a really bizarre, kinda new-agey way. Like, "writing down the things you want and visualizing them literally affects changes in reality because of the positive energy you're sending out." It's been over a decade so maybe I'm misremembering it in some part, but I'm reasonably sure it was The Dilbert Principle.


That wasn't the Dilbert Principle. That was The Dilbert Future. And after reading the other book he did, the one that was part self-help and part autobiography, I think I got how affirmations worked for him--he had the ability to take risks to begin with.

The way I think it works is that by writing down the goal he can focus his attention on it subconciously.

>>87193212
Is this that self-help/autobiographical book? I read that years ago and it's actually why I held myself off from quickly reacting to his Trump posts. If you read his book he talked about how he's willing to fail a lot to see if he can learn something from it. And if you read that book and his posts about persuasion, then you see he's trying to use all the stuff he's telling you about on a general audience while talking about the election, usually to mess with people's heads. Think about it. He "endorsed" Hillary then switched to Trump and then to Gary Johnson. It fits in with the pacing then leading thing he was talking about.

>>87197918
Ok, good to know. Like I said, it's been over a decade, but I'd swear that there was an element of mysticism to the way that he talked about it that struck me as odd, especially when compared to the rest of his work.

I guess I can see that approach working, though.

File: 1476391185653.jpg (72KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x960px

no man , THIS IS REAL LIFE LEARN IT NOW BIZACH FUCK CUNT WHORE/#SLUTNET.FAIL.COM

File: 1471814515873.gif (2MB, 300x317px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x317px

>>87199092

>>87194705

It's a reasonable cause for concern, since Twitter is a notoriously private, non-responsive company. There's very little transparency in twitter management, and from what little there is, the statements are increasingly vague and non-specific. That gives rise to conspiratorial thinking. If people don't have the facts, they'll fill in the blanks themselves, and it's hard to fault them for it.

>>87195064

The reason people say "twitter does nothing" is because twitter doesn't make specific statements, not even to the press. No one knows what's going on behind the scenes there, which is why everyone is upset.

>>87199127
And Twitter like YouTube recently did love to hand off responsibility and blame to someome else.

Course the YouTube Heroes plan is way more likely to be abused,

>>87198989
The way it sounded in the Dilbert Future is that it did come off a bit like mysticism. But I think he left open the possibility for other factors that caused it.

But a lot of him is about using failure to get ahead and a lot of determination (like for instance the story of losing his voice), so I'd think those helped him get ahead and the affirmations were more like a tool to hone his focus rather than the actual thing that made his desires come true.

Wasn't "The Dilbert Future" where he talked about how gravity wasn't real, it was just everything expanding out of sync with you?

I always assumed he was taking the piss...

But yeah, the cartoon is actually really good. Not great, but worth watching.

Football? Did you say football?

>>87202507
>huthuthuthuthuthuthuthuthuthuthut

>>87200427
>I always assumed he was taking the piss...

He said in one of his books (I can't remember if it was the self-help book or the Joy of Work book) about he does a lot of pranks. I know in Joy of Work there was the one where he (with the help of the Logitech co-founder) did a prank where he pretended to be a consultant named Ray Mebert.

He's been generally consistent with talking about affirmations so I assume he at least partly believes in it, just not neccesarily in the new agey way that people assume he does.

Maybe 10 years ago I would've been there with Comics Alliance and the other comics pros (like Cameron Stewart or whoever) and journalists in going "Is Scott Adams a lunatic asshole?" or taking shots at him if he did back then what he does now, but knowing the stuff he wrote about, I tend to get wary because there's times I think he's deliberately baiting people. I do leave open the possibility that he's going crazy, but when you know of the stuff he's written before, a lot of the comments that have been inflaming people on Twitter come off more like bait.

>>87193056
This will never stop being relevant

>>87199300

Yeah but literally everyone is against it, I can't expect it to last long.

IDK, going back to the main point, I don't think Scott Adams is crazy. He's a bit eccentric with his fixation on persuasion and such, but his blog is an entertaining read, where he's merely offering different perspectives on various things. It's enjoyable and refreshing, periodic oddities aside.

>>87194489
He's a trump tard for one thing.

>>87209543

weak b8, not even worth a reaction image

File: dilcry.png (105KB, 592x422px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 592x422px

>>87191986
The crossover with Marmaduke was exceptional.

>>87209543

He's not afraid to take him down though

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/24/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-vows-to-kill-donald-trump-if-he-becomes-acts-too-hitler-ish/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mxitw5DjwE

>>87194567
Roommate recently told me that "Republicans want to smash the United States to pieces." To which I replied, "I think all politicians have a vested interest in keeping the government around." He just shook his head like I didn't get it. He also supports bringing refugees over and killing prisoners, so he's all over the place with his morality.

>>87212472
No... that sounds like typical Marxism. Kill all the countrymen and replace them with ""global citizens"".