The Dahl Affair

[matticus]

Many US newspapers including the Washington Post have dropped the long-running Dilbert cartoon strip after its creator made racist comments.In a video on YouTube, Scott Adams, who is white, said black Americans were part of a "hate group" and that white people should "get the hell away" from them.Mr Adams, 65, later acknowledged that his career was destroyed.He said most of his income would be gone by next week.

Presumably IF the mythical "cancel culture" did exist, then this would be a good illustration of it?

 

[Ian H]

Presumably IF the mythical "cancel culture" did exist, then this would be a good illustration of it?

In this case I would suspect it's not so much about the cartoons as about giving money to a person with weirdly reprehensible views.

 

[icowden]

I shan't be cancelling him just yet, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says (I haven't actually seen/heard the alleged comments yet). YMMV.

I think he's over egging the pudding a little. His income may be "gone" but he's still worth about $75 million. Once the hoo-ha has died down I suspect the strips will get picked up again and they are still hosted online.

 

[winjim]

I don't see how the Scott Adams thing is news. I thought we all knew this about him. Didn't he go full MAGA a few years ago? I don't think anyone who's been supporting his work since then can claim ignorance.

 

[multitool]

I think there's a weird myopia about the accusations of 'canceling'. Do we not all consume things from people who may hold views we don't like? I'll give JKR as an example. I think her input into the trans culture war is pernicious, but I don't think her views are reflected in her fictional writing, so I wouldn't necessarily eschew her works, but for the fact they are kids books. I won't buy Walliams books for my children because I feel his innately unpleasant character is overtly reflected in his writing and I don't want my kids to think it's a good thing. I wouldn't let them watch Little Britain either as it mocks mentally ill people and that isn't a world I want to live in.

Dilbert? Well, he's said something unwise. Would I fire him if I was his editor? Yes, just as I would fire a shop assistant who aired racist views on facebook.

Is this cancel culture, no? Its choosing where to place your money.

The real cancel culture is not around these capricious millionaires, it is around those who remain voiceless because they are kept in a socially repressed position by the amplification of prejudicial views.

 

[matticus]

I think there's a weird myopia about the accusations of 'canceling'. Do we not all consume things from people who may hold views we don't like? I'll give JKR as an example. I think her input into the trans culture war is pernicious, but I don't think her views are reflected in her fictional writing, so I wouldn't necessarily eschew her works, but for the fact they are kids books. I won't buy Walliams books for my children because I feel his innately unpleasant character is overtly reflected in his writing and I don't want my kids to think it's a good thing. I wouldn't let them watch Little Britain either as it mocks mentally ill people and that isn't a world I want to live in.

Dilbert? Well, he's said something unwise. Would I fire him if I was his editor? Yes, just as I would fire a shop assistant who aired racist views on facebook.

Is this cancel culture, no? Its choosing where to place your money.

The real cancel culture is not around these capricious millionaires, it is around those who remain voiceless because they are kept in a socially repressed position by the amplification of prejudicial views.

Para numbers:
1) Some borderline subjective views in there, but overall a totally reasonable approach.
2) I fear you'd get sued if you sacked that person thusly.
3) Hmmm. What about all the newspaper readers who read Dilbert before the rest of the paper? Unless the cartoons are racist, I can't agree with this (feel free to take some time to get through this).
4) well ... that's all rather vague, so hard to asses. I leave to the manifold CC experts ...

 

[BoldonLad]

Isn't "cancel culture" what used to be called a "boycott"?

 

[icowden]

. I won't buy Walliams books for my children because I feel his innately unpleasant character is overtly reflected in his writing and I don't want my kids to think it's a good thing. I wouldn't let them watch Little Britain either as it mocks mentally ill people and that isn't a world I want to live in.

It's worth adding to that, that 90% of his books are frankly terrible. I was made to read quite a number of them to my daughter. Thankfully when we got to the 14th book (Slime) she actually stopped me whilst reading and said "Dad - this book is really bad... can we read something else?". I think she was about 10 at the time. I'd say the first 5 books are not too bad, followed by books 8 and 9. To be fair to Walliams part of the problem is the publishers wanting to put something out every 6 months and giving him the incentive to pump out paper thin nonsense.

That's backed up by the books that have been adapted for the screen (the first 5 plus The Midnight Gang and Grandpa's great escape). The only exception is his sequel of Gangsta Granny .

 

[presta]

I tried dahl once on somebody's recommendation, but the rice made the pages all soggy.

 

[the snail]

 

[multitool]

Para numbers:
1) Some borderline subjective views in there, but overall a totally reasonable approach.

How uncharacteristically generous of you, Matt.

2) I fear you'd get sued if you sacked that person thusly.

Sued, or sued successfully? Not the same thing at all. Ask Laurence Fox.

Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 sets out five potentially fair reasons for dismissal. These are:

Capability and performance concerns;
Misconduct;
Redundancy;
A breach of a statutory duty or restriction (such as a change in immigration status or loss of a driving license); and
Some other substantial reason.

It is that last one that is a bit of a catch all, because it contains within it that an employees external actions may preclude them from successfully carrying out their job. It might be that their actions harm relations with colleagues (highly likely) or it might be that the actions bring the employer business into disrepute (clearly evident). So I fear you may not be correct, and there are plenty of example of work-based anecdote and legal precedent to suggest this is the case.

3) Hmmm. What about all the newspaper readers who read Dilbert before the rest of the paper? Unless the cartoons are racist, I can't agree with this (feel free to take some time to get through this).

See previous para

4) well ... that's all rather vague, so hard to asses. I leave to the manifold CC experts ...

It's a reflection on power differentials between those claiming to be canceled, and the actual minority groups they are attacking. One has a platform as well as economic and social capital...minorities often don't.

 

[matticus]

How uncharacteristically generous of you, Matt.

That is ALWAYS my aim. ESPECIALLY for you!

2) I fear you'd get sued if you sacked that person thusly.

Sued, or sued successfully? Not the same thing at all. Ask Laurence Fox.

Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 sets out five potentially fair reasons for dismissal. These are:

Capability and performance concerns;
Misconduct;
Redundancy;
A breach of a statutory duty or restriction (such as a change in immigration status or loss of a driving license); and
Some other substantial reason.

It is that last one [so we can rule out the first 4 - ED] that is a bit of a catch all, because it contains within it that an employees external actions may preclude them from successfully carrying out their job. It might be that

POTENTIAL
MAY
MIGHT....
all doing a lot of work there.

Without details of this unspecified racism by unspecified person in unspecified shop, I'd say we can both only speculate. But you certainly can't simply sack an employee purely on the grounds of racist comment on social media

 

[multitool]

<I always feel my spirits lift when I see a Matticus response>

This is why some employment tribunals are won, and some are lost. IANAL, but my guess is that Scott will not sue

 

[Ian H]

<I always feel my spirits lift when I see a Matticus response>

This is why some employment tribunals are won, and some are lost. IANAL, but my guess is that Scott will not sue

A) US employment law is very different.
B) I would think Scott was contracted, not employed.

 

[matticus]

B) I would think Scott was contracted, not employed.

Another victim of the zero-hours contract culture