edit: I simply wish to enjoy comics, and I hope others can enjoy them too, without having to do a full background check on the author of the comic, keeping the community simple and nice. This should be like a library of good comics.
I understand your desire, but life does not exist in a vacuum. While death of the artist may be easy for you, it is not as simple of an equation for others, especially when said author still lives and benefits monetarily from their creation. And yes, I think we have some culpability even in what we share for free, as keeping them culturally relevant allows their benefits and influence to continue.
Personally, I was a big Dilbert fan; my parents used to gift me a new Dilbert calendar annually and I subscribed to the Washington Post for years in no small part so I could read the weekly Dilbert strip. So I’ll admit it, I take this particular betrayal a little personally. Finding out that Scott Adams was a racist bag of shit felt like hearing that my favorite uncle was actually an non-convicted rapist.
For what it’s worth though, I am sorry that Scott Adam’s gross personal abhorrent opinions get in the way of enjoying your silly office humor comic strip, sincerely.
I get not wanting deal with every artist’s hidden history. But Adams is a well known and documented nut. Your comment is like wondering why people are mad at Roman Polanski and why you can’t just “enjoy” his movies. Sure you can, but I’m gonna judge you for it.
Do you not watch or enjoy any of the movies that Harvey Weinstein had his name or company attached to? Cuz it’s a shit load of films and stuff you are saying people shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy without being judged for it because that guy was a monster.
How is it different? He profited from it, did he not? Shouldn’t you feel bad or guilty for watching movies he got money from producing or having his name/company attached to, by your own logic?
I did hear today the first time about a man named Adams or Roman Polanski and I support OPs point. As long as the media I consume doesn’t reflect the authors political opinion I don’t care.
Would you judge me for playing minecraft because the creator of it is suddenly known for being racist?
Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, consuming media and products supports the creators and the media apparatus around them. So by contributing views/clicks/whatever, you benefit those people. If those people use their money/influence in a negative way (against marginalized communities or antivax or anti worker etc) then you are directly helping those causes. I still listen to CDs of some artists that have been found to be awful, but I won’t stream, or purchase merch, or event tickets. Everyone is going to draw their lines in different places, and we can’t avoid all harm. But own it. Trying to say that what you’re doing has no effect is intellectually dishonest
For example… Minecraft… The villagers are well known as a racist Jewish stereotype which directly reflects its former heads actual real racism against Jewish people.
This is not saying that Minecraft is bad, in the same way that the Goblins from Tolkiens stories don’t make Tolkien bad… But the art directly reflects the artist.
In something like Minecraft, there are too many hands in the pot at this point for a single voice to be the cause of writing off the whole game but with Adams, Polanski and Stone toss, there is no way to separate their art from them. They are the leading/sole voice and that voice is very easy to hear in what they write.
If your local bar owner is a known child rapist, are you going to go and drink beers or order food at their bar?
Probably not, yeah? I mean, sure, it’s not like the beer or food did anything wrong, but why still go there and support their business when there’s another bar right down the street?
People don’t want to support a known racist, and would rather just go read any one of the other thousand+ comic strips out there.
I don’t get it though. The introduction and context outside the comic are insanely biased, but the comic itself, without context, seems fine? Granted I’m not American, so I might be missing something
Not again? Last time was stonetoss. If you are this disconnected maybe do a quick “is this artist a well known bigot” web search before posting from here on.
Right. But libraries have books that talk about other books. In the same way, it’s fair to have discussion sections that discuss the comic strip’s authors. Otherwise, the discussion sections will just be full of things like: “This!” or “OMG so relatable” etc.
Just a reminder that Dilbert creator Scott Adams is a racist conservative bigot
Oh no, not again.
edit: I simply wish to enjoy comics, and I hope others can enjoy them too, without having to do a full background check on the author of the comic, keeping the community simple and nice. This should be like a library of good comics.
I understand your desire, but life does not exist in a vacuum. While death of the artist may be easy for you, it is not as simple of an equation for others, especially when said author still lives and benefits monetarily from their creation. And yes, I think we have some culpability even in what we share for free, as keeping them culturally relevant allows their benefits and influence to continue.
Personally, I was a big Dilbert fan; my parents used to gift me a new Dilbert calendar annually and I subscribed to the Washington Post for years in no small part so I could read the weekly Dilbert strip. So I’ll admit it, I take this particular betrayal a little personally. Finding out that Scott Adams was a racist bag of shit felt like hearing that my favorite uncle was actually an non-convicted rapist.
For what it’s worth though, I am sorry that Scott Adam’s gross personal abhorrent opinions get in the way of enjoying your silly office humor comic strip, sincerely.
I get not wanting deal with every artist’s hidden history. But Adams is a well known and documented nut. Your comment is like wondering why people are mad at Roman Polanski and why you can’t just “enjoy” his movies. Sure you can, but I’m gonna judge you for it.
Do you not watch or enjoy any of the movies that Harvey Weinstein had his name or company attached to? Cuz it’s a shit load of films and stuff you are saying people shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy without being judged for it because that guy was a monster.
A little different to say Weinstein was as involved in say a Tarantino movie, as Polanski was in a Polanski movie.
How is it different? He profited from it, did he not? Shouldn’t you feel bad or guilty for watching movies he got money from producing or having his name/company attached to, by your own logic?
I did hear today the first time about a man named Adams or Roman Polanski and I support OPs point. As long as the media I consume doesn’t reflect the authors political opinion I don’t care.
Would you judge me for playing minecraft because the creator of it is suddenly known for being racist?
Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, consuming media and products supports the creators and the media apparatus around them. So by contributing views/clicks/whatever, you benefit those people. If those people use their money/influence in a negative way (against marginalized communities or antivax or anti worker etc) then you are directly helping those causes. I still listen to CDs of some artists that have been found to be awful, but I won’t stream, or purchase merch, or event tickets. Everyone is going to draw their lines in different places, and we can’t avoid all harm. But own it. Trying to say that what you’re doing has no effect is intellectually dishonest
Edit: missed the 't in a can’t
All art reflects its artist.
For example… Minecraft… The villagers are well known as a racist Jewish stereotype which directly reflects its former heads actual real racism against Jewish people.
This is not saying that Minecraft is bad, in the same way that the Goblins from Tolkiens stories don’t make Tolkien bad… But the art directly reflects the artist.
In something like Minecraft, there are too many hands in the pot at this point for a single voice to be the cause of writing off the whole game but with Adams, Polanski and Stone toss, there is no way to separate their art from them. They are the leading/sole voice and that voice is very easy to hear in what they write.
And you judge people on such grounds, but you will also be judged for doing so.
Sure. If I become a racist Maga bigot, or I rape a child like Polanski, I shall be judged for it. I accept that
If your local bar owner is a known child rapist, are you going to go and drink beers or order food at their bar?
Probably not, yeah? I mean, sure, it’s not like the beer or food did anything wrong, but why still go there and support their business when there’s another bar right down the street?
People don’t want to support a known racist, and would rather just go read any one of the other thousand+ comic strips out there.
His racism and abhorrent views have leaked into his content, there is no separating the art from the artist here.
Didn’t leak into this particular comic strip though
This is not a coincidence, though. I would not post or allow racist comics in this community.
I know about his racist rants, do you have some examples of affected comics? Too many unrelated results on Google
https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2022/05/03/dilbert-presents-black-character-gets-dragged/
I don’t get it though. The introduction and context outside the comic are insanely biased, but the comic itself, without context, seems fine? Granted I’m not American, so I might be missing something
context is a bitch isnt it
Not again? Last time was stonetoss. If you are this disconnected maybe do a quick “is this artist a well known bigot” web search before posting from here on.
Right. But libraries have books that talk about other books. In the same way, it’s fair to have discussion sections that discuss the comic strip’s authors. Otherwise, the discussion sections will just be full of things like: “This!” or “OMG so relatable” etc.
On the upside, he inspired an interesting couple episodes of behind the bastards about himself