Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[romad1]

In retrospect, Roger Waters was always fascinated by the nazis.

 

 The scenes in The Wall where he becomes a dictator show that. 

[Motor City Sonics]

Wow, looks like the creator of Dilbert if picking up where angry racist Gallagher left off when he died.  

[Motor City Sonics]

8 minutes ago, romad1 said:

In retrospect, Roger Waters was always fascinated by the nazis.

 

 The scenes in The Wall where he becomes a dictator show that. 

I like a lot of Pink Floyd music, but I do have to separate the artist from the art.   Same thing with Jack Kerouac, who was a great writer, but just a horrible human being.   

I would say the same about Lou Reed, but let's face it, Lou hit the right note about 4 or 5 times in his whole life, and other than that he was just about the most untalented person to ever hit it big in music.   Overrated as a musician and certainly as a man (just a little sidenote - Lou would him women in public and brag and laugh about it).  

[romad1]

4 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I like a lot of Pink Floyd music, but I do have to separate the artist from the art.   Same thing with Jack Kerouac, who was a great writer, but just a horrible human being.   

I would say the same about Lou Reed, but let's face it, Lou hit the right note about 4 or 5 times in his whole life, and other than that he was just about the most untalented person to ever hit it big in music.   Overrated as a musician and certainly as a man (just a little sidenote - Lou would him women in public and brag and laugh about it).  

It always depends on the artist.  Michael Jackson,  people can separate the pederasty from the art because the art was so good and his upbringing was so weird. 

I don't think you get to be a nazi though.  That is beyond the pale (ironically).

[Motor City Sonics]

42 minutes ago, romad1 said:

It always depends on the artist.  Michael Jackson,  people can separate the pederasty from the art because the art was so good and his upbringing was so weird. 

I don't think you get to be a nazi though.  That is beyond the pale (ironically).

Polly Samson agrees with you.  

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Wow, looks like the creator of Dilbert if picking up where angry racist Gallagher left off when he died.  

This isn't the first time Adams has landed on the 'wrong' side. But I think Adams is easy to misread because Dilbert *appears* to be an anti-capitalist character, but I think Adams actually comes at it more the Ayn Rand direction - it's only the incompetence that bothers him.

Edited February 26, 2023 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

42 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

This isn't the first time Adams has landed on the 'wrong' side. But I think Adams is easy to misread because Dilbert *appears* to be an anti-capitalist character, but I think Adams actually comes at it more the Ayn Rand direction - it's only the incompetence that bothers him.

Every time i see the Scott Adams is a MAGA thing i worry this is Gary Larson.  Dilbert is old and busted but The Far Side is eternal.

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Every time i see the Scott Adams is a MAGA thing i worry this is Gary Larson.  Dilbert is old and busted but The Far Side is eternal.

Someone gave me this a long time ago - 50th birthday maybe? My all time fav..

[oblong]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

This isn't the first time Adams has landed on the 'wrong' side. But I think Adams is easy to misread because Dilbert *appears* to be an anti-capitalist character, but I think Adams actually comes at it more the Ayn Rand direction - it's only the incompetence that bothers him.

I didn’t know his history. I started to follow him when the pandemic hit. He was contrarian on all of that and I saw him as a voice on the other side and I wanted to see that point of view.  Then I saw some crazy stuff.  I’m not sure this is the worst he has expressed.  I think he’s legit messed up in the head. Like something physically wrong rather than just being an idiot with bad opinions.  

[mtutiger]

23 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I like a lot of Pink Floyd music, but I do have to separate the artist from the art.   Same thing with Jack Kerouac, who was a great writer, but just a horrible human being.   

I would say the same about Lou Reed, but let's face it, Lou hit the right note about 4 or 5 times in his whole life, and other than that he was just about the most untalented person to ever hit it big in music.   Overrated as a musician and certainly as a man (just a little sidenote - Lou would him women in public and brag and laugh about it).  

I love Floyd, but I mostly celebrate the rest of the band + Syd. They never get enough credit. Particularly from Roger, who still to this day thinks he's the only talent from the band.

The dynamic reminds me a lot of David Byrne + Talking Heads, except Byrne is both orders of magnitude more talented and better as a human being overall, despite his flaws 

Edited February 26, 2023 by mtutiger

[romad1]

I think Roger Waters was always a narcissist.  It reflects in his work.  

If you think on that too much when you listen to their stuff it detracts from the enjoyment. 

[mtutiger]

46 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I think Roger Waters was always a narcissist.  It reflects in his work.  

If you think on that too much when you listen to their stuff it detracts from the enjoyment. 

The biggest tell for me as to Waters true import to the band is that, essentially, there are three albums under the Pink Floyd name that were more or less domineered by Waters or Gilmour: The Final Cut, Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell.

The latter two are both flawed albums, but the music overall fine... Gilmour's guitar sounds great and you get to hear more of Wright's organ in Division Bell in particular. 

The former was utter trash and contained some of the most over the top, navel gazing lyrics you'll find. The last song (Two Suns in the Sunset) was about the literal nuclear holocaust, ffs. Just self-important tripe, most of that album.

Maybe it's because I'm more an instrumentation guy than a lyrics guy, but I just don't see it with a lot of Waters' solo and solo-esque stuff 

Edited February 27, 2023 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

Regarding Scott Adams' transgressions, if any of us rolled into work on Monday and started popping off like he did, most (if not all) of us would be looking for work on Tuesday.

I am unclear why he deserves preferential treatment or doesn't deserve to experience the consequences of his actions. Nor do I understand why newspapers should be compelled to use space in their publication for his cartoon if they prefer to go in a different direction 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Regarding Scott Adams' transgressions, if any of us rolled into work on Monday and started popping off like he did, most (if not all) of us would be looking for work on Tuesday.

I am unclear why he deserves preferential treatment or doesn't deserve to experience the consequences of his actions. Nor do I understand why newspapers should be compelled to use space in their publication for his cartoon if they prefer to go in a different direction 

IDK, it's a weird place we are in. It's not like the transgression was in 'Dilbert', is was 'on his own time' as we use to say. Would you fire the carpenter framing your house if he said what Adams did on day while he was taking a break, or would you just do what once was pretty standard procedure for anything anyone said in any unofficial capacity and chalk it up to "It's a free country" ?  That's the bizarre thing about social media - there was a time when it was considered a democratic discipline to allow people the range of their private opinions. But Social Media as blown up that old consensus in a weird way. On one hand we can't resist treating social media as private discussion but then also treat it as public profession with public consequence both simultaneously. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

It seems like Adam's was making a public profession.  Social was just the vehicle.

[oblong]

Radio “banned” the Dixie Chicks so I don’t see why newspapers can’t do the same. 

[pfife]

Uncle Ralph came a tad too strong apparently

[gehringer_2]

43 minutes ago, pfife said:

It seems like Adam's was making a public profession.  Social was just the vehicle.

I think if you are on social media you have to have that understanding, but I think as a practical matter most people on social media still don't actually process it intellectually that way. Now I think you can make a fair argument that being a person intimately familiar with publishing as a matter of profession, he in particular should know better. But that doesn't mean people don't still fall into the trap/error/mistake/whatever.

[pfife]

15 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think if you are on social media you have to have that understanding, but I think as a practical matter most people on social media still don't actually process it intellectually that way. Now I think you can make a fair argument that being a person intimately familiar with publishing as a matter of profession, he in particular should know better. But that doesn't mean people don't still fall into the trap/error/mistake/whatever.

I understand where you are coming from but I think Adams was intending to be very public.

[pfife]

50 minutes ago, oblong said:

Radio “banned” the Dixie Chicks so I don’t see why newspapers can’t do the same. 

Freedom of the press except for the press being free

[mtutiger]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

IDK, it's a weird place we are in. It's not like the transgression was in 'Dilbert', is was 'on his own time' as we use to say. 

Social media being used as a tool for companies to vet potential and even current employees isn't exactly a novel thing... they taught me that during my undergrad 10 years ago.

But it is also apples and oranges as well... Adams is a very high profile person, and clients of Adams (which, frankly, the newspapers are) may find it bad for business to avail themselves of his services when he goes on unhinged rants about culture war issues.

My overall point is that Adams isn't entitled to space in any newspaper, just as Doonesbury or Garfield or whatever aren't... its business. Maybe he should take that into consideration going forward and accept responsibility for how his words may impact his brand and how his clients (ie. newspapers and readers) subsequently view said brand.

Edited February 27, 2023 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

11 minutes ago, pfife said:

I understand where you are coming from but I think Adams was intending to be very public.

Scott Adams has been doing this stuff for years. He's not an idiot, he knows better.

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

My overall point is that Adams isn't entitled to space in any newspaper, just as Doonesbury or Garfield or whatever aren't... its business. Maybe he should take that into consideration going forward and accept responsibility for how his words may impact his brand and how his clients (ie. newspapers and readers) subsequently view said brand.

I don't have any argument with a paper that decides not to carry him, but it just goes back to the eternal question of how much do you care that a person is a jerk if they produce a useful work product? Now obviously it's not likely society actually suffers any loss if Dilbert isn't in the local rag, but I'm still interested in the more general question. 

So what if a heart surgeon has politically incorrect opinions? Does the hospital withdraw his OR priviledges if he makes a racist post on twitter? I can imagine UM medical almost certainly would. Is that 'statement' worth taking a life saving doctor off the surgical line? Extreme case - obviously for the sake of the example. The 'U' would argue he can go practice somewhere else, but that's sort of a specious logic because if everyone followed their example he clearly couldn't. And making an ethical 'statement' that only cost society nothing if you know others won't follow your example seems like a self-righteous and not very honorable kind of virtue signalling.

Edited February 27, 2023 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I don't have any argument with a paper that decides not to carry him, but it just goes back to the eternal question of how much do you care that a person is a jerk if they produce a useful work product?

I mean, the guy has acted like a jerk for years and has largely remained present in all of these publications. So apparently not much. When he decided to go on a racist rant, unsurprisingly, the relationship appears to have been reevaluated for a number of them.

I honestly don't know where the line is or should be, but it's not like what he said wouldn't be firable or stick with anyone else for the rest of their careers as they seek employment, so I'm not sure why his case is the one that deserves deep thoughts or sympathy other than he's a high profile figure with a microphone and the rest of us aren't 

Edited February 27, 2023 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I mean, the guy has acted like a jerk for years and has largely remained present in all of these publications. So apparently not much.

When he decided to go on a racist rant, unsurprisingly, the relationship appears to have been reevaluated for a number of them.

 

I guess the assumption going in was that while the 1st generation of users might have these 'transitional' issues learning how to keep their private selves private again, that the generations coming up behind them would have it figured out, but I think the availability of SM to adolesecents and their unfinished comprehension of risk and future consequence is too hopeless a combination to ever get everyone out the other side safely.....

It's just interesting how far we've shifted in my lifetime from the simplicity of Volaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.", which was once pretty commonly accepted as the 'enlightened view', to our present complexities.