You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
neither is their argument necessarily designed to impress you.
The U.S. is a democracy. If you have slogans that makes it easy for your opponents to portray you as an extremist, you aren't going to win elections and have the chance to put your policies into practice. Sensible people want a police force that serves the citizens and is focused on public safety. If you can't put forward arguments that impress mainstream voters, you've just handed your opponents the election.
Cougar
Full Member
I thought “defund the police” was a reaction to the US police brutalising and killing innocent young black men?
It was just given as an example of the US right wing spinning a (well intentioned) slogan, in order to further fuel the culture wars in the US. Much like “black lives matter” being wilfully misinterpreted as “well are you saying that white lives don’t matter?!”
And before Ernie tries to explain it to me
I haven't tried to explain anything to you. I expressed an opinion which wasn't necessarily identical to someone else's opinion (it wasn't even yours) ie I don't believe that they meant simply "reform the police" when they said "defund the police".
before chiming-in with a moderately shitty response.
Indeed - someone else has apparently annoyed you but you end up having a pop at me! 👍
The US is an oligarchy with a very thin veneer of democracy.
So basically like all the other democracies.
For me the only thing that stands out about the United States is the power and wealth that it has. Not much else.
More or less yes, however there are different funding models and regulations around party funding and lobbying etc that can limit the influence of the very rich on politics. IMO the US are very bad in regulating that influence, the UK aren't far behind and Europe as a whole is moving closer.
This thread has turned into yet another nit picking, deliberately misquoting, point scoring shitshow. As usual.
Back to the OP - I'm glad he's been dropped, the guy was a nasty deluded clown.
I don’t believe that they meant simply “reform the police” when they said “defund the police”.
Reform is a very broad term. Any change where there is still a police force that catches criminals is a reform, because you're retaining the core function of a police force, even if you change the name. If you think they meant that there won't still be an agency that catches criminals, then you are talking about abolishing the police. This is what right-wingers portrayed "defund the police" as. Abolishing the police is electoral suicide, that's why a slogan that can be interpreted that way is a huge mistake.
I believe that they were talking about diverting money away from the police and investing it in schemes which would help to tackle the causes of crime.
Defund the police possibly got more attention than a slogan along the lines of "let's invest in things to minimise the causes of crime instead of just pumping more and more money into the police" might have got.
A form of click bait if you will - to kick off the discussion. But I don't know - I don't follow US politics very closely.
I believe that they were talking about diverting money away from the police and investing it in schemes which would help to tackle the causes of crime.
Which is a reform. The police still focus on their core job of catching criminals, the social work side of things is done by trained social workers. Voters in democracies want police forces that catch criminals, so a slogan that makes people think that you don't care about catching criminals is electoral suicide.
Musk has weighed in on the matter.
One more reason I'm glad I've stopped using twitter.
Sensible people want a police force that serves the citizens and is focused on public safety. If you can’t put forward arguments that impress mainstream voters
The problem is that a) you are smugly assuming that you're the sensible adult in the room who needs to be convinced, and b) this is a issue that falls upon everyone equally and is for everyone to decide. But in the hyperlocalised and racialised world of US policing, b) isn't true. And I have my doubts about a)...
Musk has weighed in on the matter.
Well of course he has, it fits his demographic.
I thought “defund the police” was a reaction to the US police brutalising and killing innocent young black men?
Often, yes, but American police officers are perfectly happy to brutalise anyone who isn’t obviously rich and/or connected to the RepubliKKKan party…
Musk has weighed in on the matter.
Merely carrying on with his father’s prejudices, musk senior was a dick, musk jnr is also a dick
Has anyone else been amused by his current use of the Edinburgh defense in saying that it should have been obvious that his statement was hyperbole and was not be taken as actually what he meant. In fact if you don't listen to and understand the context given in one hour of other material then you don't really have the right to comment
There is also a lot of poor reporting going on around this which is really not needed as the actual facts are bad enough, they don't need any help
This is a pretty good summary of the world that Scott Adams, Musk, etc. have taken up residence in.
https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1630351201811169283
Didn’t Scott Adam’s just say out loud what pretty much every rich and successful American (not just the white ones but a great many of the black ones as well) has been doing for decades?
Hell, Dave Chapelle literally made it part of his own stand up routine.
Scott Adams claimed that black Americans were a "hate group", is that really what every rich American has been saying for decades?
Didn’t he *actually* say that if a recent Rasmussen poll saying that 26% of black people thought it was not “OK” to be white, and a further 21% weren’t sure, then that would make them a hate group?
In fact, he specifically said “according to this poll, not according to me”
But then, reacting to what somebody actually said rather than what somebody else claimed they said isn’t really a thing any more is it?
As discussed, the ‘getting the hell away from’ black people used to be called ‘white flight’, and yes, it’s happened for decades.
poll saying that 26% of black people thought it was not “OK” to be white
That wasn’t the poll. It asked if people agreed with a particular phrase, and understanding the answers given requires an understanding of how that particular phrase is in use.
understanding the answers given requires an understanding of how that particular phrase is in use
Exactly. It's like surveying people about "living space," which sounds like a perfectly innocent phrase, but means much more than it appears.
In fact, he specifically said “according to this poll, not according to me”
He based his comment solely on his own interpretation of the poll's findings, so it is perfectly reasonable to say that he accepted the poll.
But then, reacting to what somebody actually said rather than what somebody else claimed they said isn’t really a thing any more is it?
I suppose if you only look at the statement "there ain't no black in the Union Jack", they're factually accurate because that flag is red, white and blue, and therefore unobjectionable. If you actually consider the context and implication of them, then you'd probably come to a different conclusion.
But then, reacting to what somebody actually said rather than what somebody else claimed they said isn’t really a thing any more is it?
People like Adams, along with lots of rationally minded people (largely men it seems) take these comments at face value. From what I can tell he said this:
If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people – according to this poll, not according to me, according to this poll – that's a hate group
Taking the poll question at pure face value - in a vacuum, if you like - would indeed lead to this interpretation. But as has been explained on this thread, it can't be taken in a vacuum. The question itself was loaded, and Adams isn't aware of that. He's not aware because he's white.
Now being ignorant of the issues surrounding race is perhaps understandable for a white person safely protected from the realities, but what is NOT forgivable is not listening when it's being explained to you. Digging in your heels and going on to talk about these things publicly doesn't necessarily mean you hate black people. It means you aren't listening to black people. It means you think you know best about race issues, that you know more about being black than a black person. Of course, people who do this also act similarly about other things such as feminism, trans issues, or the politics of equality, so it's not purely a race issue - it's a being arrogant and being a dick issue.
The question itself was loaded, and Adams isn’t aware of that.
Adams absolutely was aware of the context. He's well-informed and smart. But he's also a troll and an arsehole.
Taking the poll question at pure face value – in a vacuum, if you like – would indeed lead to this interpretation. But as has been explained on this thread, it can’t be taken in a vacuum. The question itself was loaded, and Adams isn’t aware of that. He’s not aware because he’s white.
You could say the same of Adams' history. You shouldn't take this one incident in a vacuum either, this isn't the first time he's courted controversy.
If he isn't aware, it's not "because he's white," it's because he's an idiot. And for all his other failings I really don't think that the creator of Dilbert is an idiot. So really that only leaves us with one interpretation of his awareness.
Taking the poll question at pure face value – in a vacuum, if you like – would indeed lead to this interpretation. But as has been explained on this thread, it can’t be taken in a vacuum. The question itself was loaded, and Adams isn’t aware of that. He’s not aware because he’s white.
Kind like 'Black Lives Matter'?
And for all his other failings I really don’t think that the creator of Dilbert is an idiot.
No he is obviously not an idiot. Which is why knowing that his highly incendiary remark would cause a backlash he was very careful to blame the pollsters with this comment :
If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people – according to this poll, not according to me, according to this poll – that’s a hate group
It's the pollsters who are labelling black people as a hate group, not him, he would have you believe.
The question is are people as stupid as he apparently believes they are?
Well some might be but he appears to have destroyed his own career overnight so he might not be quite as clever as he thought he was.
Well some might be but he appears to have destroyed his own career overnight so he might not be quite as clever as he thought he was.
Possibly, but when you’re sitting on a $70million personal fortune, then it’s obvious he’s coming up short on the number of ***** he couldn’t give for anyone else’ opinion.
Well if he doesn't give two shits about his enforced retirement then I guess that is a different matter.
Although I can't help feeling that there are probably better ways of retiring than by being publicly humiliated by hundreds of newspapers across the land who castigate you and announce that they no longer want anything to do with you.
The "Real Coffee With Scott Adams" videos suggests that he fancies himself as an internet influencer whose opinions matter. So it doesn't seem to be a particularly smart strategy.
I wasn’t aware of the phrase ‘it’s ok to be white’ in the context of far right groups. If some one asked me if I agreed with the statement, on face value I’d say yes..obviously
So we appear to be missing the context of the question in it’s entirety. If 25 % of black folks had never heard the expression either, and took it at face value, then that’s pretty horrific
Obviously if it was positioned in the proper context, then it’s far more understandable that they said no
Obviously the reaction from the dilbert guy is dickish either way
🙂
So we appear to be missing the context of the question in it’s entirety.
The problem is that it wasn't designed as a neutral poll to judge opinion. It was designed to generate controversy.
It's not quite the same as a push-poll, but it has a similar intention. A push-poll is when you pretend to be doing a survey of opinions, but actually push you views on people. For example:
"Would you be concerned that Joe Biden being in an age group susceptible to dementia renders him unfit for the presidency?"
Reputable polling organizations don't do stuff like this. They might do work for political parties, trying to identify issues that can help their campaigns, but that's based on honest research, not fake polling questions intended to manipulate people.
Scott Adams claimed that black Americans were a “hate group”, is that really what every rich American has been saying for decades?
Well, there are some Black individuals who could be considered part of a ‘hate group’ by other POC’s…
Came across this earlier, thought I’d drop it in here…
Well, there are some Black individuals who could be considered part of a ‘hate group’ by other POC’s…
Yeah of course. Black people can hate too. But why does a former Atlanta fire chief apparently provide an example of this?
Who is he "hating"? I have to admit to not reading the article beyond a few sentences as I didn't feel it deserved that much attention.
I assumed that he was being ultra-patriotic and thanking God for bringing his ancestors to the United States, no?
I don't think I've ever read a Dilbert strip
But I thought I post this simply because the prosthetics a rather good
I don’t think I’ve ever read a Dilbert strip
25 years ago they were quite relevant. Times have moved on.
This is good
People like Scott Adams claim they’re being silenced. But what they actually seem to object to is being understood
That was good! I really enjoyed reading it, thanks for posting
Well the free daily Dilbert cartoon has now gone behind a paywall. I loathe Adams politics but love Dilbert