You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well Scott Adams finally took it that bit too far. It'll be interesting to look at the website and see where it goes with no oversight from mainstream media...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64775250
Scott Adams lost the plot years ago.
https://www.theawl.com/2017/12/dilbert-a-reckoning/
The ability to detect irony is increasingly necessary for being alive in America. If you have not by now recognized on your own that the world has been careening through a too-salty first draft of The Onion, there is no helping you. Irony is especially important with Dilbert because the antagonist of Dilbert, at least for the first few decades, was the Pointy-Haired Boss. And there is no other person in the entire public consciousness who is more like the Pointy-Haired Boss than Donald Trump.
Many times, Trump is belligerent where the Pointy-Haired Boss is merely daft, but the basic thrust of both characters is the same: they understand nothing about any situation but proudly bulldoze their way through every room they enter. They have no friends, but having no friends is not really a problem because they don’t even want friends. They are incapable of thinking about anything other than themselves. And yet they are also incapable of introspection or self-improvement. (Again, not a big problem: they’re not interested.) Everything they touch crumbles to dust but still (and this was the central thesis of Dilbert) the world is for some reason still cruddily bent into a dumb shape that unfailingly supports them anyway. There is, yes, the funny hair.
The Pointy-Haired Boss has also been undergoing a makeover over the decades-long arc of Dilbert, becoming an increasingly sympathetic character. The Dilbert reader of, say, 1997 would find it sacrilege to learn that, in 2017, there are comic strips where the Pointy-Haired Boss is the discerning voice of reason and it is his employees who are difficult, selfish, stupid:
He's always been an unpleasant sod.
He has such a high regard of his own opinion and so little of others that he would be impossible to be around. It's a shame as he did have alternative opinions that could make you relook at your own views but he would do it in such a way that the whole experience would be unpleasant and there was something seriously wrong with you if you didn't agree
He's on Patreon a lot now though so this might even give him a boost there, who knows
Edit:sorry, not Patreon, he moved to locals.com now
conspiracy theorist loon who lost the plot years ago. Should have stuck to mildly amusing comics rather than pretending he had something meaningful or interesting to say.
Deplatform and cancel him. Like Dahl, another conspiracy theorist loon. Erase, rewrite and forget.
Bye bye racist, tin-foil hat nut job.
If you listen to his subsequent podcast he takes 20 minutes to explain the logic behind what he said, but, there is no doubt that he understands concise language as that is what he does when he writes cartoons and when he says white people should avoid black people there is zero doubt that he is trying to stir controversy in an unpleasant way. I can't see why newspapers would want to do anything other than distance themselves from him
I can’t see why newspapers would want to do anything other than distance themselves from him
There's a very large, profitable audience that will buy it.
There’s a very large, profitable audience that will buy it.
Oh completely. I can't see him running out of income any time soon
When does his Daily Mail contract start?
It's quite scary to think a quarter of black people in that people poll didn't think it was OK to be white, that is racist. However the Dilbert man has then gone on to blame all black people for the views of a minority (although the other quarter who weren't sure also need to have a serious word with themselves) which is exactly what was objecting too.
We do need to confront the racist attitudes across society, making the comments he did won't further that cause.
I think we need context to why some might not agree with it.
His comments were made in response to a survey in which people were asked to agree or disagree with the phrase: "It's OK to be white.".
The phrase is believed to have emerged in 2017 as a trolling campaign and has since been used by white supremacists.
It’s quite scary to think a quarter of black people in that people poll didn’t think it was OK to be white, that is racist.
I think you are missing the context. It is a phrase adopted by white supremacists & racists. A bit like ‘All lives matter’. On the surface you can’t disagree with the statement, which is why it was invented, but it is a signal for indicating extreme views. It is purposely designed to elicit a negative response to what appears to be a reasonable phrase.
If someone came up with the phrase ‘I believe the earth is round’ on the understanding this actually meant ‘I like having sex with young children’ then you could see why people might disagree with the statement.
It’s quite scary to think a quarter of black people in that people poll didn’t think it was OK to be white, that is racist.
No it is not scary at all because it is a nonsense question. And it is designed to be such.
What does it even mean? Everyone needs to be black because being white isn't okay?
No it is not scary at all because it is a nonsense question.
Scott Adams even makes that point himself, it was a stupid survey with a question which can take on multiple meanings so the survey really had no value. The problem for Scott was he then used that to make an inflammatory statement knowing full well the result, in the same way he refers to 'the woke democrats' knowing that he doesn't think all democrats are woke but also knowing that that's how people will read his words. He really brought this on himself by trying to be too clever
To think he used to actually be quite progressive in terms of creating a pleasant environment to work in.
I'm not going to be burning my Dilbert books any time soon but definitely won't be putting any money his way.
Where's Bill Watterson when you need him?
There's a lot of extremist views on the internet recently. The last three years have been disturbing.
I work in an oppositional developing nation. I have to listen to a lot of brainwashing anti-democratic views here. I read about woke/anti-woke viewpoints in the international news.
What's true/valid anymore?
How much of this nonsense is drummed up by russian/Iranian numpties trying to destabilize our society?
Try not to get some ucked up into extremist viewpoints.
How much of this nonsense is drummed up by russian/Iranian numpties trying to destabilize our society?
The subject matter here is an American expressing his views on American society. I know that blaming foreigners for societal issues is popular but how responsible do you really think Iranians are for Scott Adams's apparent racist views, in their search to destabilise American society?
Russia, Iran (and China) are absolutely actors in all this… the internet has ended up being a gift to them when it comes to spreading and magnifying disinformation, discontent and disorder.
Because of course the Iranians give a toss about Scott Adams's racist opinions.
It is anti-foreigner conspiracy nonsense like that which the far-right thrives on. Ironically.
The Iranians just want to be left alone, they are not interested in world domination or destabilising American society, whatever right-wing nutjobs might claim.
I don't believe that mrdestructo was referring specifically or even indirectly to Mr Adams, he was talking about the country in which he works. That's how it read to me, anyway.
I hate to break it to you Ernie, but despite your unwavering and occasionally admirable enthusiasm to go from Zero to That's Racist at the slightest of opportunities, sometimes foreigners don't have the best interests at heart of those who are foreign to them. Just ask someone from Ukraine, for instance. Or closer to home, if you think Russia didn't have a hand in your brexit then you're deluding yourself.
Ironically.
... that said, a lot of governments don't have their populace's best interests at heart either. Just look at China, or the UK. We're still trying to ban encryption, though Hanlon's Razor isn't wildly implausible here.
Apologies for the tangent, as you were.
It is a phrase adopted by white supremacists
Silly me for not realising the words didn't mean what they meant.
As with everything context is key.
If only the news article had pointed that out.
Silly me for not realising the words didn’t mean what they meant.
You know, I won't actually go to the foot of my stairs if you claim to take literally every sentence you read.
sometimes foreigners don’t have the best interests at heart of those who are foreign to them.
Which means that Iran is trying to destabilise the United States and it is somehow connected to a daft comment made by an American comic strip cartoonist? Get a grip.
What is not in doubt is that for 45 years the United States has been very obviously trying to destabilise Iran. Why? Because they want to re-establish an American stooge government in a region with "vital US interests", as existed before when Iran was even less democratic than it is now.
The idea that Iran wants to similarly destabilise the United States is very obviously right-wing conspiracy nonsense.
Firstly Iran is clearly not in a position to destabilise a country as powerful as the United States. And secondly if Iran did manage to somehow bring down the United States government what would it be replaced with - the Islamic Caliphate of the USA? FFS
Although I know that the right-wing redneck nutjob mantra is "because they hate America".
It is ironic indeed that on a thread dedicated to the consequences of racist comment made by an American cartoonist crass islamophobia, so loved by right-wing racists, should surface.
You are simply wrong about Iran, and that state’s use of the internet to sow discontent and confusion abroad, including in the USA. Of course they won’t “bring down” the USA, and they’re not trying to establish anything to do with Islam there… no idea where you got that from. It’s disinformation and division they want to encourage. Using and encouraging racism in the USA (and elsewhere) has been one of their means of doing so. Probably second only to pandemic related confusion.
This comes to mind.
Should apply to both sides (perspectives)
Picard Speech - Drumhead (S4E21)
Captain Jean-Luc Picard : Mister Worf, villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged. Lieutenant Worf : I think... after yesterday, people will not be so ready to trust her.
no idea where you got that from
Well read the thread in that case. I even copied and pasted the comment. Here it is again:
How much of this nonsense is drummed up by russian/Iranian numpties trying to destabilize our society?
It is clearly trying to plant the idea that the Iranians could somehow be responsible for Scott Adams’s daft racist comment, because they are trying "to destabilise our society".
Never miss an opportunity to have a dig at foreigners if your society fails in some way, especially if it can whip up a bit of islamophobia at the same time.
Iranian (and Russian and Chinese) disinformation campaigns been trying to build up racist feelings and actions in the USA. One of the Iranian ones that Facebook discovered included spreading memes about shooting black mall/supermarket staff… really unpleasant stuff. Stick your head in the sand if you want, but I’m afraid Iran is one of the states using the internet in this particular way abroad. Russia might be better known for it, and China have the scale, but Iran is at it as well.
The claim was about "destabilising our society", I take that as meaning bringing down a government and causing huge change - which is exactly what happens when the United States destabilises a country.
Iran struggles to destabilise neighbouring Iraq let alone has the capability to destabilise Western society. It is standard right-wing shock jock talk. I have no idea why it has surfaced on a thread about an American comic strip.
No real knowledge of the artist himself, but I do love Dilbert...will be a shame if that ends.
Daft question, but is it possible the media have misunderstood his comment? Having not read any of the background stuff, I'm hoping it is 'just' a misunderstanding of a comment.
Saying that, if it turns out he really is racist and being vocal with it, then he deserves to be shutdown.
Live and let live, but I suspect the let live bit is difficult for a number of people (which is aimed at racists in general, not any particular people on this thread).
Just been flicking through my Dilbert book… still damn funny and portrays working in a 1990’s IT department perfectly. Adam’s went odd on social media about five years ago, proper “easiest to just unfollow and block this guy” stuff. Unsurprised at this recent event… but no idea whether he has been on a “journey” about how he feels toward his fellow citizens, or has just been pushing what he can openly say but has always thought, or whether he is playing with what can be said without believing in it himself. Only he can know for sure.
The claim was about “destabilising our society”, I take that as meaning bringing down a government and causing huge change –
The actual claim was "trying to destabilise", your inference is a non sequitur.
Thanks ransos that is really useful but I had already acknowledged that point as in :
because they are trying “to destabilise our society”.
Daft question, but is it possible the media have misunderstood his comment? Having not read any of the background stuff, I’m hoping it is ‘just’ a misunderstanding of a comment.
No, he sadly turned into an alt-right nutter quite few years ago. His twitter feed is full of pro-Trump / cancel culture / etc etc stuff. A pity - I was also a Dilbert fan for many years, but I can't bring myself to read him now.
Thanks ransos that is really useful but I had already acknowledged that point as in :
So as I said, your inference is a non sequitur.
Daft question, but is it possible the media have misunderstood his comment?
Your question isn't daft imo but the question in question, so to speak, ie : Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white”? was indeed daft.
As pointed out in this comment:
Disagreeing with the statement might mean, “I see what you’re doing there: trying to weasel out of white society’s obligation to recognize the intrinsic injustices it inflicts on black citizens!” Or it might mean, “I hate those honky bastards! They’re all the same: evil.” Without defining terms, no poll is legitimate.
Which means that Iran is trying to destabilise the United States and it is somehow connected to a daft comment made by an American comic strip cartoonist? Get a grip.
As I said,
I don’t believe that mrdestructo was referring specifically or even indirectly to Mr Adams, he was talking about the country in which he works. That’s how it read to me, anyway.
The rest of your wall of text is all very commendable, but I think you're railing against an "idea" from a poster here which doesn't actually exist outside of your own head. The quote that you "even copied and pasted" you'd taken out of context.
... as it looked to me, anyway. I might be wrong.
he was talking about the country in which he works.
I thought he worked in China, no? He didn't mention China, apparently Russia and Iran are the villains here.
But fair enough if you think mrdestructo's comment wasn't in anyway refering to the Divert/Scott Adams story which is what this thread is apparently about. I still disagree that Iran is "trying" to destabilise our society though. I think that they want is to be left alone, and unsurprisingly sometimes take hostile actions in retaliation.
I think that they want is to be left alone...
...to continue oppressing at least half their population using extreme religiosity as the tool to do it.
Yeah, you're right. There's nothing off with that.
…to continue oppressing at least half their population using religious extremism as the tool to do it.
Well yes if that's the way you want to look at it. They definitely don't want the United States to interfere in their national affairs.
It should be remembered that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the direct consequence of Western interference btw. Before the West decided to interfere and install a hated dictatorship Iran was a democracy. Unfortunately, for the Iranians, that didn't serve Western interests.
I still disagree that Iran is “trying” to destabilise our society though.
I agree with Ernie.
Iran "trying" to destabilise the West is laughable to say the least. How? To convert everyone into their thinking? They have enough problems of their own to contain with let alone "trying" to destablilise the West. It is more likely the other way around.
I think that they want is to be left alone, and unsurprisingly sometimes take hostile actions in retaliation.
That's exactly what they want to be left alone. Their own population will deal with their own govt and does not require others to teach them.
…to continue oppressing at least half their population using extreme religiosity as the tool to do it.
Therefore, the West has the rights to intervene in their internal affairs?
To convert everyone into their thinking?
No, disinformation campaigns are not about conversion, but rather confusion and distrust.
That’s exactly what they want to be left alone.
Iran doesn’t keep itself to itself. There are many examples of Iranian state sponsored campaigns aimed at internet users outside Iran.
No, disinformation campaigns are not about conversion, but rather confusion and distrust.
You don't need Iran to do that tbh. The West can do that themselves to themselves which is much more effective than having Iran to do it. It's like me asking the STW members to eat durian (some say it smells like cat poo) for breakfast, would you?
o, Iran doesn’t keep itself to itself. There are many examples of Iranian state sponsored campaigns aimed at internet users outside Iran.
People don't need internet to be influenced, and as far as their religion is concerned they are hardly a force to influence beyond themselves. Their claim of the bloodline of the Prophet is disputed by other Muslim scholars so how are they going to influence I don't know.
Iran doesn’t keep itself to itself. There are many examples of Iranian state sponsored campaigns aimed at internet users outside Iran.
...or indeed Press TV, a Iranian government news channel which paid Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway thousands of pounds to host chat shows.
"Iran doesn’t keep itself to itself" because the government owns a TV broadcaster which promotes its policies?
Is that why the United States has been trying to destabilise Iran for the last 45 years?
I'm not sure what this has to do with Dilbert - this is all part of a campaign by Iran, and Press TV, to try to destabilise "our society"?
The Iranians were using Dilbert to try to destabilise America, or Scott Adams self-cancelling himself was how the Iranians were hoping to destabilise Western society?
The Iranians were using Dilbert to try to destabilise America, or Scott Adams self-cancelling himself was how the Iranians were hoping to destabilise Western society?
The only connection is that the rise in the public pronouncements of far right racist attitudes has been one of the society splitting issues that Iran (and other countries) have fostered with their internet disinformation activities. They have been caught out in the USA almost as often as Russia and the Chinese, but it is assumed in tech circles that the higher detection rate is more to do with them using more naive and traceable techniques, rather than them coming close to matching the amount of activity of either of those states with bigger and more experienced programmes.
A poster mentioned it in passing. It’s only your “Iran doesn’t do that kind of thing” posts that have taken this off topic. They do. And have been caught doing so.
And I made a passing comment that Iran isn't "trying to destabilise our society", not “Iran doesn’t do that kind of thing”.
But you keep going back to it. Somehow a daft comment made by an American comic strip cartoonist is indirectly Iran's fault. If it isn't then stop talking about it.
Any problem the United States has concerning racism cannot reasonably be blamed on foreigners.
continue oppressing at least half their population using extreme religiosity as the tool to do it.
Yup, the repeal of Wade vs Rowe was a bugger, wait till you see what they have planned for gay marriage.
I thought he worked in China, no?
I've no idea.
But fair enough if you think mrdestructo’s comment wasn’t in anyway refering to the Divert/Scott Adams story which is what this thread is apparently about. I still disagree that Iran is “trying” to destabilise our society though.
Who are you disagreeing with? If he's in China then he's not talking about "our" society, he's talking about the one he's in. You may have an insight perhaps, but I have no idea what Iran's machinations may be against China. Nor it would seem does the aforementioned mrdestructo, as complaining about not knowing what's truth due to the prevalence of misinformation was the crux of his post.
... anyway. Washed-up right-wing gobshite cartoonists, anyone?
… anyway. Washed-up right-wing gobshite cartoonists, anyone?
Something I remember reading a while back is if you look at Adams history he is actually the pointed haired boss. Explains a lot really.
Who are you disagreeing with?
I thought it was mostly you disagreeing with me? I was just pointing out that Iran isn't trying to destabilise the 'our society'. As chewkw points out they have more important things to worry about.
And the demise of Dilbert has nothing to do with Iran trying to destabilise the United States.
Although it wouldn't surprise me in the least if right-wing conspiracy nutjobs on far-right forums in the US aren't making that claim as we speak.
If he’s in China then he’s not talking about “our” society, he’s talking about the one he’s in.
Unless most punters on STW are Chinese I very much doubt that he meant Chinese society when he said "our society".
Although it would certainly put a new angle on the allegation if mrdestructo meant that Dilbert's demise was the indirect result of Iran and Russia trying to destabilise Chinese society, I will grant you that.
Daft question, but is it possible the media have misunderstood his comment?
Nope.
https://www.theawl.com/2017/12/dilbert-a-reckoning/
… anyway. Washed-up right-wing gobshite cartoonists, anyone?
I thought it was mostly you disagreeing with me?
You were the one expressing your disagreement.
I was just pointing out that Iran isn’t trying to destabilise the ‘our society’.
And you were the one inventing this strawman.
As chewkw points out they have more important things to worry about.
I don't doubt it. My initial reaction to the notion that Iran might be trying to destabilise China was "yeah, good luck with that."
And the demise of Dilbert has nothing to do with Iran trying to destabilise the United States.
No-one said it did.
Although it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if right-wing conspiracy nutjobs on far-right forums in the US aren’t making that claim as we speak.
Nor would I, but our shared surprise levels are neither here not there. Why don't you go find those forums and then start a thread here if you want to discuss it, rather than making stuff up in order to manufacture an argument? You're better than this, I thought.
Cartoonists, then?
Yeah I'm pretty sure that it's mostly you disagreeing with me.
Paragraph by paragraph it would appear.
I love the wording in this:
The newspapers that have cut the comic strip have been clear with readers.
"Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, went on a racist rant this week ... and we will no longer carry his comic strip in The Plain Dealer," wrote Chris Quinn, editor of the paper. "This is not a difficult decision."
"We are not a home for those who espouse racism," Quinn added. "We certainly do not want to provide them with financial support."
Particularly "This is not a difficult decision" and "We certainly do not want to provide them with financial support".
It couldn't really be more emphatic of disapproval. And less mealy-mouthed!
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/25/business/dilbert-comic-strip-racist-tirade
My initial response to wording of the question, and to the % of people answering that question as "no" was "that doesn't sound right - there's something else going on there" - and sure enough, it's a racist dogwhistle that people answering the question recognized. I have a similar response then US republicans as whether "CRT" should be taught in schools.
I find it interesting that various things that have happened in the last few years have caused a number of people to "out" themselves as holding pretty shocking views - and end up getting cancelled. Trumpism, BLM, vaccines, brexit etc etc
Usually we would have no idea that the creator of an otherwise innocuous cartoon was a closet racist/nut-job - but give them a microphone to speak to the world, and they just can't help it. In my view, that's all "cancel culture" is - the unavoidable consequence of people outing themselves as bigots/homophobes/racists on twitter.
sure enough, it’s a racist dogwhistle that people answering the question recognized
Yes, it's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" No reputable polling organization would ask it, it's designed to generate controversy, not to gather any useful data.
Or as was said earlier: "do all lives matter?"
There's a lot of this clumsy spin-doctering going on within the right of American politics ("do you think we should protect the integrity of voting?") - but the US population is so huge that even if a very small % are taken in by it, that's still a massive amount of people.
I'm sure a huge number of people now believe that "black lives matter" means that (by extension): "white lives don't matter".
The left do come up with some stupid shit though.... who on earth thought "defund the police" was a good slogan? When what they actually mean is: "stop using the police to do tasks that they are not suitable for!". How many people (tens? Hundreds of thousands?) of people not think that "the left" want to abolish the police?
The left do come up with some stupid shit though…. who on earth thought “defund the police” was a good slogan? When what they actually mean is: “stop using the police to do tasks that they are not suitable for!”. How many people (tens? Hundreds of thousands?) of people not think that “the left” want to abolish the police?
Couldn't agree more. It was a spectacularly dumb slogan. What they mean is "reform policing," which would get broad support in the abstract. Problem is, reforming policing would probably cost more in the short-term when you consider the specific things that need to be addressed, so that's a hard one to sell to either the left or the right.
It was a spectacularly dumb slogan. What they mean is “reform policing,”
I am not sure that is actually true. They were talking about reallocating funds away from policing and re-investing the money into projects that might actually reduce crime.
The argument was that pumping money into the police does not necessarily reduce crime but that tackling the causes of crime, with investment/money, would.
So it was more than just about police reform. The problem with the slogan was that it appeared simple but in reality what it was suggesting was complex and far-reaching. And of course it was misrepresented as meaning the abolition of the police.
This is of course is all in reference to policing in the United States which is quite different to the UK. In the US policing is a highly politicized issue and social justice issues are different to those in the UK. IMO the police in the UK need considerably more funds to be more effective and satisfy people's expectations.
While "defund the police" was a very poor slogan, the reality is that many police forces in the US need much more than reform, they need to be disbanded and replaced with something new. Similar to how the RUC was replaced with PSNI as part of the solution to the NI troubles.
Much of policing and the justice system in the US is just not fit for purpose, just fiddling around the edges is not going to resolve the many issues, IMO the defund the police slogan was an attempt to raise the seriousness of the issue.
Also it wasn't a "left" slogan, it was a very focused issue by the communities worst affected by the discriminatory application of law, attributing it as a "left" movement is just usual right wing propaganda to label anything progressive as "socialist".
Defund the police means exactly that in the original cases. Funding of local police in the US doesn't function like that in the UK, they are allocated a budget by local councils, similarly to fire brigades, libraries etc etc. The original intent of defunding the police is that the force was so distrusted by the local population that they wanted that funding to be removed, thus destroying that police force and causing a new one to be installed.
they need to be disbanded and replaced with something new.
Which is police reform. The "defund" slogan focuses on the disbanding, not on replacing it. No serious person wants to have a society without any police, it will just mean that people who are wealthy enough to pay for private security (i.e. private police) will be protected and everyone else won't be. So, whatever you replace the police with will include a public agency that investigates crimes and arrests people. They will be called "The Police" because that's what people expect them to be called.
One of the problems in the U.S. is that the police are called on to deal with situations that aren't really criminal matters - homeless people, people with psychiatric disorders, juvenile delinquency, etc. Those situation need trained people with a different skillset than catching criminals, and they also need resources. However, each town or city has to fund its own police force and taxpayers don't want to pay for all those services. People call the police to deal with those situations because there is nobody else available, and cops are primarily trained to arrest people and charge them with crimes, not provide social services.
I know we all like three word slogans, but "Black lives matter" really means "Black lives matter too", which would be a lot harder to argue with.
I'm sort of surprised Dilbert is still going, used to read it in the 90s, but you'd think he'd have run out of material and just be endlessly repeating himself by now....
I know we all like three word slogans, but “Black lives matter” really means “Black lives matter too”, which would be a lot harder to argue with.
I thought that had all been resolved now, they pulled over a few statues and I believe the matter is considered closed 😉
On "defund", another quirk of the US is that some police forces are self funding (on top of allocated budgets) via fines and citations hence the ones that fine people the most are also the best equipped with military grade hardware. Take that power away ffrom them and suddenly they have no reason to roam poor neighbourhoods fining folk for having a messy garden or a car being repaired on their driveway.
I know we all like three word slogans, but “Black lives matter” really means “Black lives matter too”, which would be a lot harder to argue with.
It's a statement of fact, that's all. Both statements are as equally true as each other but the shorter one has more impact since it implies there was a thinking that they don't.
It’s a statement of fact, that’s all. Both statements are as equally true as each other but the shorter one has more impact since it implies there was a thinking that they don’t.
Although the slogan "White lives matter" was considered to be highly controversial at the time...
Also a statement of fact.
So factfullness*, isn't much use as a guide....
* Also a great book, but nothing to do with pulling statues down.
I recall seeing blog posts from Scott Adams in the early 2000s that seemed to indicate he had some pretty awkward views about the Middle East and Islam and which caused me to give up on him and Dilbert at that point. I think they got a bit of coverage but obviously nothing as much as his recent comments have. But it does seem to suggest that this isn't a sudden swing to the extremes from him, he's been on this trajectory for a while.
On “defund”, another quirk of the US is that some police forces are self funding (on top of allocated budgets) via fines and citations hence the ones that fine people the most are also the best equipped with military grade hardware.
Yes, it's part of the whole federalism/local governance thing. Each town has its own independent police department. In the worst cases, the police departments are just revenue gathering. There was a case about 10 years or so back that was so bad that the courts ordered the police department disbanded. The "town" was basically just a few houses along a major highway, but it was legally a town and had its own police department. The town was basically just one extended family, so the mayor, town council, and police chief were all friends or relatives. Their only revenue stream was through traffic fines. The speed limit on the highway abruptly dropped from 60 (?) down to something ridiculous like 20, even though there wasn't really a town there. Locals all knew about the speed trap, but outsiders didn't so they were making a pretty tidy income off that scam until the courts told them to stop. That's an example that was so blatantly corrupt that it got shut down, but a lot of towns and cities fund their police through similar things that are just done a bit less blatantly.
The "civil forfeiture" is one of the worst. If police find you with a large amount of money, expensive car, etc., they can seize it as suspected proceeds of crime and it is up to you to prove that you earned it legally. The police do not have to prove that you committed any crime, you have to prove that you didn't. And, of course, the seized assets are used to fund the police department.
There's a tv mini-series called "We Own This City", which is based on a real case of an elite police task force just turning into a stick-up crew robbing drug dealers and anyone else unfortunate enough to come to their attention. If I didn't know it was based on true events, I would have dismissed it as script writers letting their imaginations run wild.
What they mean is “reform policing,”
No, they didn't. Amazingly, "Defund the Police" proponents know what they're talking about and don't need some [abstract] middle-aged IT manager from Shropshire to explain it to them, and neither is their argument necessarily designed to impress you.
Why don’t you go back and read the original conversation about the right-wing spin of some of these (well meaning) slogans, before chiming-in with a moderately shitty response.
Of course they knew what they meant when they said “defund the police” - but it’s been wilfully misinterpreted by the right as the woke socialists wanting to abolish the police, which has been picked-up by swathes of the (gullible) electorate. Campaigning for the same things under a banner of “police reform” (for example) would have garnered much more widespread support, and not given the right wing such an open goal. “Defund the police” makes the movement easy to characterise as part of the wokerati’s out of control cancel culture.
And before Ernie tries to explain it to me: I know that’s not what it is, but this is what it’s (successfully) being portrayed to people as
I thought "defund the police" was a reaction to the US police brutalising and killing innocent young black men?