- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
It's fuck all different to his older comics. He said spicier. He has not done this.
Careercow Scott Raymond Adams / @ScottAdamsSays / “Real Coffee With Scott Adams” - The Washed Up Cartoonist Behind “Dilbert”, Creator of “The Dilberito”, Professional Bullying Victim, Political Grifter, Terminally Online Narcissistic Boomer, Divorced Twice, Is (Not) Glad His Stepson Overdosed. This is Not a Racial Politics Debate Thread
- Thread starter Blacked
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2018
He probably had a few weeks backlog and is running off those.
This one is a little spicier (although still not actually funny, but more along the lines of what I expected to see from the beginning)
This is directly addressing racism in the strip and I don't think he would have tried this if it were still in syndication - he deliberately avoided commenting on Ashok's ethnicity when it ran in newspapers.
I will keep an eye out in case these strips actually get interesting.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2022
Newspaper cartoonists are notorious for burning out and phoning it on or quitting. Adams has said he only needs to be funny part of the time. These steps are ways to avoid hiring an assistant.
Keep in mind that some newspaper strips have not been funny for decades. Barney Google and Snuffy Smith has been around since 1919.
Mellorine
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2015
Last time Scott tried to make Dilbert spicy he did a multi-strip story set outside of the office about Dilbert finding a serious relationship. Scott promised to draw his tie flaccid to show if he got laid or not.
Drawing characters with their hands in their pockets is such a middle-school shortcut it's almost cute.
Drawing characters with their hands in their pockets is such a middle-school shortcut it's almost cute.
JimboWhales
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2021
I mean we can debate whether they're funny or not, but they're actual jokes with punchlines. Not just "Management Says Something Stupid -> Dilbert Points Out That It's Stupid -> (OPTIONAL) Management Doubles Down" which is probably 90% of Dilbert comics since 2010.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
This is a problem with many, many comic "gag" strips - if they're good at the short shit they flail on the sundays, and vice versa. A very few just have sunday be multiple unrelated strips stuck together. Even waterson of fond memory often didn't have a "joke" strip for sunday, more of a diorama strip.
heh a fellow connoisseur! i still am hoping for the "Barney Google gets pissed and decides to Nasim Najafi the Google headquarters" sag
I also have a feeling that very quickly Adams was onto the "Desk Calendar" feature of Dilbert; each and every strip should try to attain to be a perfect "put it up in the cubicle" joke. Which is hard to consistently do.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
Second one is decent, but would have been great about two and a half years ago.
He's shown himself drawing a strip on one of his livestreams. IIRC he has a giant tablet (Surface Studio, I think?) and he was drawing stuff by hand. I couldn't make out what software it had.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Have we addressed before that he turned Ashok gay in the newspaper comics?
Ashok was originally written as a straight man with several strips focusing on him wanting to fuck Alice and other women around the workplace. Then one strip they're showing off their subliminal messaging campaign that's suppose to make the viewer think "I want to buy gray" but when they test it on Ashok he instead gets "I want to be gay" and ever after Ashok has been written as a gay man (can't find the strips because even the newspaper ones are paywalled now)
Was he making fun of J.K. Rowling Dumbledore shit where they make established characters gay?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
It's even better than that: he had Dogbert break the fourth wall to announce that Asok was gay in response to some dipshit Indian Supreme Court decision.
Nowadays, of course, Scott would just say that straight people need to stay the hell away from gay people.
Captain_Twitch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2021
No. He made Ashok gay to protest India banning gay marriage or something. There was a real-world policy associated with that character development.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
He made the one with Dogbert after the Indian supreme court decision, but there's one before that where Asok gets hypnotized into being gay
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
Never thought I would visit the Farms every day to check out new Dilbert strips. Life is full of bizarre twists.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
So before when Dilbert was syndicated, did Clott do the coloring? Is he doing the coloring now? Because I seem to remember Ashok being way darker, but that may be a false memory. He's white af in that strip above.
Mellorine
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2015
There was a Sunday strip I am struggling to find in which a thieving janitor is colored brown, which prompted Scott Adams to claim that he never did his own coloring and it was all on the syndicate. I know it's in the Seven Years... collection, which features Scott's handwritten commentary on an assortment of Dilbert and has some early sketches and such.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I don't think it's gotten enough attention that even the newspaper strips are now paywalled.
Dilbert.com used to have an archive of all the comics from the 80s up. Now when you go there, all you see is this:
Dilbert.com used to have an archive of all the comics from the 80s up. Now when you go there, all you see is this:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2023
I hate Scott Adams. I hate Dilbert. I've hated Dilbert since I did a bid on a response team. Those stupid little fucking strips made me want to murder middle managers. Of all the retarded idiocy I witnessed while wearing a corporate noose, I could count on one constant: The usefulness of a cubicle critter on time-sensitive tasks is inversely correlated to the number of Dilbert strips displayed in his cage. I'm glad that fucktard is whining.
SBG
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2019
Scott asks for white people to be open that they wouldn't hire blacks.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
Oh, holy shit. Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected to see a man self-immolate so rapidly before a worldwide audience. Burn, Dilbertman, burn.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I've seen mentioned that Scott made his own theory of gravity in The Dilbert Future, so I looked it up. This is how baked his brain was 25 years ago:
The first problem I notice is that the gap made by jumping is closed by the expansion of the earth, but then he has to invoke space expanding to explain why stars and planets don't grow until they touch each other. So which is it? If space expands with the matter, then the space between your feet and the earth should grow and there would be no apparent gravity. If space doesn't expand with the matter, the stars and planets would crush each other.
And what of the moon? The moon is in orbit because it constantly falls around the curve of the earth so that it never hits the ground (aiming for the ground and missing as a much smarter Adams put it) that's how anything is ever in orbit. If the moon and earth were both constantly growing, they should either collide, or if the space between them expands, remain stationary to each other, but nothing about constantly doubling in size would cause the moon to circle the earth as the earth does the sun. Einstein explained it much better it his analogy Scott trashed where marbles roll around a bowling ball warping a sheet. That actually does explain orbits, whereas if we could produce Scott's constantly growing bowling ball and marbles, they wouldn't recreate orbits.
Not to mention the whole gotcha about the universe expanding is a misunderstanding. Galaxies very, very, literally astronomically distant appear to be expanding away from us, while local space on a much smaller scale isn't expanding. If anything, gravity is decreasing it. Two stars in a galaxy don't get further apart, and in fact, Andromeda is getting closer to the Milky Way and we will collide some day in the very distant future. Mars certainly isn't expanding away from us, and definitely not fast enough to escape the earth and itself touching each other as they double in size every second.
Its hard to doubt that gravity exists. Every single thing you see appears to
be affected by it. Gravity appears to be a force that reaches across space
and somehow connects two objects, making them attracted to each other.
That's what it looks like.
But scientists can't find gravity. They can only measure its effect. You
can't fill a cup with gravity or block its effect with some sort of shield or
find its molecules under a microscope. So where is it?
The best explanation that Einstein could come up with about gravity is
that it was like a bowling ball on a bed—a heavy object bending the fabric
of space. That explanation is virtually useless for a visual understanding.
Physicists talk about gravity in terms of multiple dimensions, but we're not
capable of seeing in more than three dimensions. Its safe to say that what-
ever we perceive about gravity—our simple model of objects being
attracted—is an optical illusion.
To understand how gravity can look and act the way it does and be an
optical illusion, let me describe a hypothetical universe. In this universe,
there are only two objects: you and a huge planet-sized ball.
There is no gravity in this hypothetical reality in the classic sense of
objects being attracted to each other. There is only one rule; Every piece
of matter in this universe is constantly expanding, doubling in size every
second.
You wouldn't notice the doubling, because both you and the huge ball
would remain in the same proportion to each other. There would be no
other reference points. And you wouldn't feel your own matter doubling
any more than you feel the activity of the atoms in your body now.
In your current universe, you don't feel your skin cells dying, and you
don't feel yourself being propelled at high velocity around the Sun or spin-
ning with the Earth's rotation. So it shouldn't be hard to imagine how you
could be doubling in size every second without being aware of it in the
hypothetical universe.
The only effect you would feel from this doubling in size is the illusion
of gravity The ball's growth would cause a constant pushing against you. If
you tried to 4 jump" away from the growing ball, you would create some
space temporarily, but the ball's growth would catch up with you and close
the distance quickly To you, it would feel as though you were attracted to
the huge ball and whenever you jumped "up," you would be sucked back
down to it. There would be no gravity, but it would look and feel exactly
like gravity
Visually, it would seem that the huge ball had more "gravitational pull"
than you do, because you seem to be attracted to it and not the other way
around. This corresponds to our classic view of gravity—that huge objects
have more of it.
Imagine a marble and a bowling ball. Now imagine they both instantly
double in size. The marble still looks pretty much like a marble, but the
bowling ball appears huge. When a large object doubles in size, it seems to
have a disproportionately significant impact compared to a smaller object.
So if gravity is an optical illusion, large objects would appear to create
more of the illusion than smaller objects. That's consistent with what we
see.
Now lets move from the hypothetical universe to our current universe
filled with planets and other matter. You'd have to add another rule in
order for the expanding matter theory to replace gravity in the current
universe. You'd have to have a universe where all the major planets are
moving away from each other quickly, otherwise they'd grow until they all
humped together.
In fact, the current universe does appear to be expanding, so that's no
obstacle to the expanding matter theory. I can't think of anything in the
"real" universe that would contradict the notion of gravity being an illusion
caused by expanding matter. I'm not suggesting the theory is correct, only
that its a good mental exercise for seeing how things could be very different
than you imagine them and still look the same,
be affected by it. Gravity appears to be a force that reaches across space
and somehow connects two objects, making them attracted to each other.
That's what it looks like.
But scientists can't find gravity. They can only measure its effect. You
can't fill a cup with gravity or block its effect with some sort of shield or
find its molecules under a microscope. So where is it?
The best explanation that Einstein could come up with about gravity is
that it was like a bowling ball on a bed—a heavy object bending the fabric
of space. That explanation is virtually useless for a visual understanding.
Physicists talk about gravity in terms of multiple dimensions, but we're not
capable of seeing in more than three dimensions. Its safe to say that what-
ever we perceive about gravity—our simple model of objects being
attracted—is an optical illusion.
To understand how gravity can look and act the way it does and be an
optical illusion, let me describe a hypothetical universe. In this universe,
there are only two objects: you and a huge planet-sized ball.
There is no gravity in this hypothetical reality in the classic sense of
objects being attracted to each other. There is only one rule; Every piece
of matter in this universe is constantly expanding, doubling in size every
second.
You wouldn't notice the doubling, because both you and the huge ball
would remain in the same proportion to each other. There would be no
other reference points. And you wouldn't feel your own matter doubling
any more than you feel the activity of the atoms in your body now.
In your current universe, you don't feel your skin cells dying, and you
don't feel yourself being propelled at high velocity around the Sun or spin-
ning with the Earth's rotation. So it shouldn't be hard to imagine how you
could be doubling in size every second without being aware of it in the
hypothetical universe.
The only effect you would feel from this doubling in size is the illusion
of gravity The ball's growth would cause a constant pushing against you. If
you tried to 4 jump" away from the growing ball, you would create some
space temporarily, but the ball's growth would catch up with you and close
the distance quickly To you, it would feel as though you were attracted to
the huge ball and whenever you jumped "up," you would be sucked back
down to it. There would be no gravity, but it would look and feel exactly
like gravity
Visually, it would seem that the huge ball had more "gravitational pull"
than you do, because you seem to be attracted to it and not the other way
around. This corresponds to our classic view of gravity—that huge objects
have more of it.
Imagine a marble and a bowling ball. Now imagine they both instantly
double in size. The marble still looks pretty much like a marble, but the
bowling ball appears huge. When a large object doubles in size, it seems to
have a disproportionately significant impact compared to a smaller object.
So if gravity is an optical illusion, large objects would appear to create
more of the illusion than smaller objects. That's consistent with what we
see.
Now lets move from the hypothetical universe to our current universe
filled with planets and other matter. You'd have to add another rule in
order for the expanding matter theory to replace gravity in the current
universe. You'd have to have a universe where all the major planets are
moving away from each other quickly, otherwise they'd grow until they all
humped together.
In fact, the current universe does appear to be expanding, so that's no
obstacle to the expanding matter theory. I can't think of anything in the
"real" universe that would contradict the notion of gravity being an illusion
caused by expanding matter. I'm not suggesting the theory is correct, only
that its a good mental exercise for seeing how things could be very different
than you imagine them and still look the same,
The first problem I notice is that the gap made by jumping is closed by the expansion of the earth, but then he has to invoke space expanding to explain why stars and planets don't grow until they touch each other. So which is it? If space expands with the matter, then the space between your feet and the earth should grow and there would be no apparent gravity. If space doesn't expand with the matter, the stars and planets would crush each other.
And what of the moon? The moon is in orbit because it constantly falls around the curve of the earth so that it never hits the ground (aiming for the ground and missing as a much smarter Adams put it) that's how anything is ever in orbit. If the moon and earth were both constantly growing, they should either collide, or if the space between them expands, remain stationary to each other, but nothing about constantly doubling in size would cause the moon to circle the earth as the earth does the sun. Einstein explained it much better it his analogy Scott trashed where marbles roll around a bowling ball warping a sheet. That actually does explain orbits, whereas if we could produce Scott's constantly growing bowling ball and marbles, they wouldn't recreate orbits.
Not to mention the whole gotcha about the universe expanding is a misunderstanding. Galaxies very, very, literally astronomically distant appear to be expanding away from us, while local space on a much smaller scale isn't expanding. If anything, gravity is decreasing it. Two stars in a galaxy don't get further apart, and in fact, Andromeda is getting closer to the Milky Way and we will collide some day in the very distant future. Mars certainly isn't expanding away from us, and definitely not fast enough to escape the earth and itself touching each other as they double in size every second.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2022
