Non-Literotica Morality

[R. Richard]

The Dilbert comic strip for 25 Novemer 2004 seems to outline a common, non-Literotica point of view. I thought that Literotica readers would enjoy it. The link is below.


http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/index.html


In case the link does not work or becomes out dated, the gist of the Dilbert strip is that Alice has sent an off-color e-mail to many people. Catbert, the evil director of Human Resources is chewing her out because 75 people thought the e-mail was funny and one person was offended. Thus, Alice must be punished. Alice asks would it not make more sense to punish the one person? Catbert replies: "Do I look sensible?"

 

[herecomestherain]

Thanks for the giggle R, Dilbert saved my tenuous grip on sanity and reality during a particularly hideous and prolonged encounter of the corporate kind, I've been in his debt ever since and Gary Larson's too.

 

[Raine D8]

funny and so true to life

 

[Weird Harold]

In case the link does not work or becomes out dated,

Your link has move on to friday's cartoon -- wherein it is revealed that a) CAbert cna be Bribed with large quantities of catnip and b) Walley is the one who complained.

Thursday's strip: http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20041125.html

Friday's strip: http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20041126.html

Of course, the start of the saga can be found here in Wednesdays' strip: http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20041124.html

 

[R. Richard]

I can't wait to see the next cartoon in the series wherein Wally gets to confront Alice's 'fist of death!'

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Dogbert is my hero...next to Happy Bunny.

 

[SummerMorning]

This reply is just a way for me to boost myself to 1,001 posts.

 

[cantdog]

I thought the Dilbert strip was in reference to the "sexual harassment" rules. Only one person needs to complain. The workplace is regulated by the most sensitive prude in it. That's exactly the structure of the thing.

Abuses may occur, like fucking easily, as when someone complains they feel "threatened" or "offended" only to get a third party in trouble. They get to complain entirely anonymously, too, a rule which invites spiteful abuse every time.

Anonymous complaints actually deserve to be ignored. People should have to stand there and say it, with their name on it, or shut the fuck up. But a solicitation of anonymous complants opens the gates of the rumor mill, so the bosses feel they have a finger on the pulse. Actually, they are feeling the movement, not of the pulse of their organization, but of its colon.

Bosses cannot but take the complaint seriously, however transparent the smear tactic is, they feel, because it is a federal thing through the Labor department.

Actually, nothing in any rule of the sort precludes simple judgement, using your fuckin head, but for some reason bosses frequently seize on any excuse to avoid using their judgement. If their name is on it when they do anything, they lose deniability if the thing should backfire. And cover your ass is still the Prime Directive in the sphere of so called "management."

They love to plead that they are trapped by the rules and unable to act otherwise.

If they are so in love with victimhood, what the fuck made them want to be in charge? Pusillanimous pissants.

Anyway, I was almost sure Dilbert was beefing about the results of the probably-well-intentioned sexual harassment rules.

cantdog