Bye bye Dilbert

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.

"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?

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?!”

The U.S. is a democracy.

The US is an oligarchy with a very thin veneer of democracy.

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.