Scott Adams just got canceled for mocking ESG by the people who own the newspapers, picrel the offending comic. https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-dilbert-apos-author-scott-001605663.html
>>1097070No, he wasn't cancelled for that reason. Don't post misinformation please.The reason his comic will no longer be published is because it's part of a vast downsizing by Lee Enterprises Inc. that own those 77 newspapers. Only 10 comics strips will remain in the paper:-Garfield-Peanuts-Baby Blues-The Argyle Sweater-Close to Home-Pickles-For Better or For Worse-Crabgrass-Pearl Before Swine-LuannEvery other comic that used to be published in those 77 newspapers are getting the boot, including Dilbert. The reason is money, or rather, stupid business decision, not some sort of liberal cancellation.https://twitter.com/DerfBackderf/status/1572553403217354753
>>1097070ESG only exists because the federal reserve enabled the major financial institutions to purse social policy without regard to return on investment.Before the federal reserve banks had to raise capital from deposits by individuals to then make loans to businesses. With the federal reserve unlimited capital is available at the lowest possible interest rate.
>>1097077This, Scott Adams is just pretending to be the victim like all Republicans.AlsoGarfield > Dilbert
>>1097085But is Luann better than Dilbert?
>>1097077Right.So Dilbert got cancelled.Words can have more than one meaning. Dilbert literally got cancelled, not necessarily because of politics, but cancellation is cancellation.
>>1097098Sorta, if that's how you want to use "canceled".I think most people have become so used to the word being used to imply some sort of politically motivated suppression that the word has actually undergone a slight change in meaning, it's just irresponsible reporting to phrase it like that without taking the social and political context of the word into account.
>>1097088Never had that comic in my newspaper so I will not judge it. However I will say Cathy is better than Dilbert. >Just found out it ended 12 years ago.The fuck?
>>1097077Damn ive been fact checked by a literally who on twitter that also bitches about "banned" faggot books.
>>1097098You are aware that the key part about OP repeating false information is > for that reasonRight?The article he posted makes it a big deal that it is about the ESG thing when it isn't at all.Dilbert comic got canned because it was considered to not make money enough.>not necessarily because of politics,Yet, the issue is precisely that OP pretend that it's the reason.
>>1097125You didnt prove anything. You only provided another plausable hypothesis.
>>1097129>You didnt prove anythingThe fuck? What is there to prove? OP outright report that Dilbert got cancelled because of the EGS thing and this is the actual point I showcase to be wrong: the reason of the cancellation.
>>1097070paste the article newfag
>>1097124>Damn ive been fact checked by a literally who on twitter that also bitches about "banned" faggot books.No. That's who you were whining for the sake of.
>>1097070who owns the newspapers?
>>1097253all different kinds of people
>>1097098>So Dilbert got cancelled.No, according to that post, the comic was dropped by one distributor for budgetary reasons, not simultaneously cancelled entirely by many distributors due to some mutually agreed upon wrongdoing by the creator of the comic.
>>1097088It is for the price apparently.
>>1097253From my knowledge of the business, newspapers are owned by newspaper tycoons, barons, magnates and moguls.
>>1097267That information needs updating.
>>1097085What about hiring an underqualified minority over a better qualified white candidate? Does that make them a "victim" in your opinion?
>>1097297What you are talking about is not even related to the conversation, anon.
>>1097298It is related. To achieve higher ESG ratings companies must hire underqualified minorities over better qualified white candidates, to increase "diversity". Poking fun at the absurdity of this is why Dilbert is being subject to politically motivated suppression.
>>1097273You somehow know it needs updating without knowing what the updated terms for media mogul are?
>>1097085wait i thought scott is liberal? why are republicans ripping one of their own?
>>1097306he said something non pc so he got kicked out of the sjw club
>>1097301>It is related. To achieve higher ESG ratings companiesWe are talking about newspaper dropping comics strip, anon. This has nothing to do with ESG and this isn't what is being debated, schizo.
>>1097301>Poking fun at the absurdity of this is why Dilbert is being subject to politically motivated suppression.You have just been shown there >>1097077that it isn't the case. And your reply is unrelated to anything the anon you quoted was talking about.
>>1097372He said much more than that.
>>1097070as one of the internet's most accurate predictors, i'm sure scott adams must've seen this coming.
>>1097077>-Peanutswhy is this still run?
>>1097490It's entirely tradition at this point. The newspaper editor said to himself "my granddaddy liked this so it stays".
>>1097399>>1097146Read this post at least three times because you won't get it the first time. You have poor research skills, poor reading comprehension skills, and poor critical thinking skills, but you feel the need to go on the Internet and DEBOOOOOK statements. That shit is annoying, and I'd like you to stop.You go on here telling people you proved it wasn't ESG, but the result of a downsizing by Lee Enterprises, based on a post from some faggot on twitter. A couple problems:1) You should have linked the press statement from Lee Enterprises instead. A faggot on twitter is not a source. By the way, that post you linked was removed.2) Their press statement doesn't prove definitively that ESG wasn't the reason. Think! Would a corporation make a statement that they fired people based on race? Is it not possible that they're lying?I think Dilbert was most likely removed because of downsizing. Scott Adams seems to be overeager to jump to the conclusion that he was discriminated against because it's happened to him twice before. I do have to admit the timing is suspicious that he got removed after submitting comic strips making fun of ESG, but that doesn't prove his case. Maybe someone had it out for him and is using downsizing as an excuse, but I'd need more evidence to change my mind.
>>1097598They canceled just over fifty other comic strips, including the black activist strip Boondocks. Were they all complaining about ESG?News print is dying, if not dead already - shit's gonna get canceled.
>>1097490a number of these comics aren't even new or being worked on, they're syndicated.
To achieve higher ESG ratings companies must hire underqualified minorities over better qualified white candidates, to increase "diversity". Poking fun at the absurdity of this is why Dilbert is being subject to politically motivated suppression.
>>1097070Women are conniving and petty and will absolutely ban someone over a joke they don't like then victimize themselves over their own decision.That being said Scott Adam's said all he had to say in a couple youtubes back in 2015. The rest has just been a grift
I knew the corporate world would take down Dilbert one day, but I thought it'd be due to us becoming the corporate dystopia envisaged by punks in the 80s and 90s, not like this.
>>1097598>You have poor research skills, poor reading comprehension skills, and poor critical thinking skillsNo, that's you. the Dilbert comic was not cancelled because of the EGS thing, therefore, your question there >>1097297Is unrelated to the matter. You are a moron, read >>1097077again and get smarter.
>>1097121How OLD are you? Jesus Christ get the fuck off of 4chan grandma.