By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Scott Adams, the creator of the “Dilbert” comic strip, passed away months after revealing his prostate cancer diagnosis, as confirmed by his family. Adams had previously made controversial racist remarks that led to his cartoon being dropped by numerous newspapers. In a recent online appearance, he alluded to his declining health and expressed gratitude to loved ones. The legacy of “Dilbert,” which satirized office life, was overshadowed by the fallout from his public comments and his subsequent embrace of the idea that white people are targeted.
Read the original article here
Scott Adams, ‘Dilbert’ creator and conservative commentator, dies at 68, and the news has sparked a wide range of reactions, to say the least. It’s a moment that’s forcing a reevaluation of a figure who was, for many, a source of daily humor and astute workplace observations. The irony isn’t lost on anyone: a man who, through his comic strip, brilliantly skewered corporate culture, is now being judged through the lens of his own very public and controversial choices in his later years.
The most poignant sentiment echoed across the board is a wistful acknowledgment of the “Dilbert” legacy. Many remember the comic fondly, recalling the days of eagerly awaiting the next strip, finding humor in the everyday absurdities of office life. Those early “Dilbert” cartoons resonated, depicting the struggles against incompetence and the often-bizarre realities of the corporate world. They captured a particular zeitgeist, and Adams, at the time, was seen as a sharp observer and a clever commentator on modern work. There’s a definite sense of disappointment that the creator of that comic could become someone so dramatically different in the public eye.
However, Scott Adams’ later life cast a long shadow over the earlier successes. His embrace of conservative commentary, his staunch support for Donald Trump, and, most notably, his controversial views on race and his embrace of alternative medical treatments, particularly his use of ivermectin to combat cancer, became major points of contention. The news of his death is complicated by these actions, leading to a complex mix of grief for the loss of a talent and frustration with his choices. The narrative seems to be that he destroyed his own legacy.
The impact of his political leanings is hard to ignore, and they are woven in through the commentary. His words about race and his vocal support for figures like Trump alienated many, making his passing a moment of, for some, mixed emotions. The phrase “good riddance” is used by a number of people, conveying the sense that his controversial opinions overshadowed his creative contributions. Some have expressed it directly; others more subtly.
His actions, especially regarding his health and the choices he made about his treatment, have also drawn scrutiny. The fact that he opted for unconventional methods, turning away from established medical practices, is not lost on anyone, particularly in the face of his illness. This raises questions about his judgment and his apparent distrust of science, which ultimately contributed to his untimely death. This choice added another layer of complexity to the overall narrative, and it’s a source of both sadness and frustration for many. The idea that his own views and the choices he made ultimately led to his demise is difficult to reconcile.
Amidst the conflicting emotions, there’s a strong undercurrent of sadness. Despite the controversies, there’s a recognition of a life cut short, a human life affected by a terrible disease. The idea that he missed what should have been a life of joy and fulfillment, and that his life was instead consumed by anger and hatred, is something that many seemed to acknowledge.
There’s also an intriguing reflection on the man himself, a creative talent who achieved substantial success, yet seemed to lose his way in the later stages of his life. This raises the question of whether his later opinions were always present, only veiled, or if he changed.
The overall sentiment is a complex mix of nostalgia, disappointment, and, for some, even a degree of relief. The creator of a once-beloved comic strip is now remembered as a man whose later actions eroded his reputation. The news serves as a reminder of the fragility of legacy and the enduring impact of personal choices. It’s a moment that prompts introspection: a call to reflect on how one’s actions can ultimately shape the narrative that defines us.