Low support for defunding police:

https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/lexington/news/2020/06/09/national-poll-finds-low-support-for-defund-police-?fbclid=IwAR2PcrEuMEk9d5RFKeWI8GiM8OeXgZObwpbU9flrb5D1OGzDQLwZj2_Un0c

"When it comes to party lines there is not much difference, with 16 percent of Democrats responding saying they support it while 15 percent of Republicans do. Broken up into races you begin to see some more divide but no race overwhelmingly supports the idea.

Defunding police has the strongest support among Blacks, with about a third of respondents saying they support it, a third of respondents saying they oppose it, and a third do not have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. That’s compared to 17 percent of Hispanics answering they support the idea and 12 percent of whites."

I also note, since May 25, UFO sightings and complaints from flat earth theorists have entirely stopped, when they were at unprecedented levels, but given the sudden silence after public support is not found for defunding the police, I expect them to be restarting in a few days.

You can always tell when a bad idea has entered the discourse by the amount of censorship its dogmatists resort to in order to suppress any dissent. People are losing jobs and being ostracized for doubting this or any comparable narrative.

In the UK a radio host was suspended when he questioned his white privilege. A former Canadian cabinet minister was forced to resign from 3 positions for denying systemic racism exists in Canada. A chief reporter from the Western Mail was axed for opposing the protests. NYT Op-Ed editor James Bennett resigned due to the outcry over publishing an opposing opinion. A top Philadelphia Inquirer editor was forced to resign for daring to write the headline “Buildings Matter, Too”. Alexander Katai was dropped from the LA Galaxy because his wife made unpopular comments.

The irony of the corporate world becoming the propaganda wing of an arguably anti-capitalist movement isn’t lost on me. But the suppression of any dissent also hints at the weakness of the ideas being put forward. Truth does not require protection from the withering powers of criticism.

Well said, and history shows us pretty clearly that its true. ideologies that later turn out to be very weak almost always have censorship as a primary trait.

Low support for defunding police: — ernestm

It's a very poorly chosen slogan, IMO.

Well said. — DingoJones

The problem, as I see it, is that the argument can be applied to any position. "I am getting fired because of my swastika tattoo? Clearly you're just afraid of an open exchange of ideas." There is always going to be a sliding scale of what views are sociall acceptable. And when it's a hot button issue, it's likely that there are going to be bad calls made. That's not some form of organised suppression of dissent though, and the conclusion that the ideas supposedly "protected" by the suppression is weak simply doesn't follow, as my initial example illustrates.

Thats a good point, but surely we can find a more reasonable cut off than the examples NOS used but that do include the example you used. What gets compared (and shut down) to your swastika example is pretty egregious.

That's not some form of organised suppression of dissent though, and the conclusion that the ideas supposedly "protected" by the suppression is weak simply doesn't follow, as my initial example illustrates.

I never said nor implied the suppression is organized. In fact I think it’s capricious. But the sheer volume of people being coerced into silence and conformity is frightening. If dissent isn’t suppressed to protect the orthodoxy, why is it suppressed?

Yes, but at least one of his examples isn't remotely accurate.

What actually happened was:

"Tea Katai made the posts on her Instagram story earlier this week, and the Galaxy angrily condemned them as "racist and violent" on Wednesday. The posts included a photo with a caption written in Serbian urging police to "kill" protesters, another referring to protesters as "disgusting cattle," and a third sharing a racist meme." — Baden

If your wife is an out-of-control racist calling for people to be killed, you better disavow that shit quickly or you can expect some blowback.

People punished for the crimes of their family. That’s something you find in tyrannical societies.

Take out their families — Donald Trump

This guy must really be a scumbag then. But we can make the US less tyrannical by dumping him in November.

Oh Trump. That didn’t take long.

There are probably hundreds of ways to expose your ridiculous levels of hypocrisy. Quoting Trump is just one.

I guess they should expect some blowback.

Your position as a Trump supporter appears to be that censoring someone for what their family did is tyrannical, but murdering them is OK. My position is that some blowback (e.g. someone loses their job) is not necessarily tyrannical, but execution would be. That's the difference between a perfectly reasonable and consistent position (mine) and an utterly ridiculous one (yours). The only way out for you to be consistent is to condemn Trump as tyrannical. So, go ahead.

If you find an instance of me firing someone because their spouse made comments I didn’t like you can rightfully call me a hypocrite. Until then bringing up irrelevant info about unrelated events doesn’t convince me that I’m being unreasonable or inconsistent.

You're not very good at this, are you? Sometimes, I wonder if your real job is just to make Trump and his supporters look bad. If that's it, I commend you. Onward and upward...

Yes, but at least one of his examples isn't remotely accurate.

What actually happened was:

"Tea Katai made the posts on her Instagram story earlier this week, and the Galaxy angrily condemned them as "racist and violent" on Wednesday. The posts included a photo with a caption written in Serbian urging police to "kill" protesters, another referring to protesters as "disgusting cattle," and a third sharing a racist meme."
— Baden

If your wife is an out-of-control racist calling for people to be killed, you better disavow that shit quickly or you can expect some blowback. — Baden

It doesnt matter to you that the person punished didnt do what they were punished for? I understand you are saying its bad for him to not disavow the behaviour but are you saying thats why he was fired? Cuz He didnt disavow it (or didnt disavow it fast enough rather)?
It seems like he was fired by his association, how did you determine it wasnt?

I don't know the ins and outs so it depends. But if you say nothing that sounds like tacit approval. The way I would deal with it would be to contact the guy and tell him he better disavow and give him a chance to do so before getting fired. That would seem the fairest way to approach it to me.

(So maybe something unfair happened but "tyrannical" is hyperbole. Let's save "tyrannical" for a President who wants to literally kill people's families to punish them.)

Strange times. Here’s Katai’s pandering apology:

"I strongly condemn white supremacy, racism and violence towards people of color. Black lives matter. This is a mistake from my family and I take full responsibility."

"I will ensure that my family and I take the necessary actions to learn, understand, listen and support the black community."

I would love to see his wife’s full quotes, because I suspect that they are being portrayed as more than they are.

(So maybe something unfair happened but "tyrannical" is hyperbole. Let's save "tyrannical" for a President who wants to literally kill people's families to punish them.) — Baden

Maybe? Seems pretty clearly unfair. Tyrannical Ill grant is a stretch but there are uses of the word that dont mean murderous presidents so it doesnt seem that over the top to me.

I don't know if he was given a chance to disavow or not. I agree he should have been.

Lol, ya but you openly admit you dont trust the source so your suspicion is automatic isnt it?

I dont think he should be fired for not disavowing. Do you think thats why he was fired? How did you determine that was the case?

I don’t think these people have a just bone in their body. Either way, systemic wokeness is becoming a fearful reality.

I dont think it is. Its mostly on the loud mouthed fringes, most of it is either harmless or results in positive change. Its certainly a problem in specific areas, but the population at large doesnt seem effected enough to call it systemic.

Looking into it, turns out he eventually did disavow and was fired anyway. So, maybe it was unfair. But my capacity for caring about some millionaire footballer and his pathologically racist wife is kind of limited.

Ok.

Im not sure what you expect me to say any more. I pointed out, getting rid of the police entirely, as the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor said it wants to do, is going to result in organized crime moving into the city, and the murder rate going through the roof.

People who support the move ridicule me for saying that, and frequently call me racist too. I dont know why they make themselves appear so convinced that they make themselves tacit accomplices to those murders. I have good reason to doubt their motives are sincere. That also includes 'Black Lives Matter' now, which has threatened to raze the country if there is another event it does not like, which is a terrorist threat.

So thats all I have to say now.

I pointed out, getting rid of the police entirely, as the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor said it wants to do, is going to result in organized crime moving into the city, and the murder rate going through the roof. — ernestm

Uh huh. Like e.g. that lawless hellhole Camden, NJ?

No one expected these protests, the kinds of conversations they opened, the political atmosphere they birthed, the scale of what they are bringing about (perhaps never to be substantiated). — StreetlightX

It's the focus point of the much broader, deeper anger of the frustrated "consumer". To be consumers is to be cattle being fattened up for the slaughter. Discussion about sexism, racism, classism and so on is just "rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic". The frustration is on account of the apparent impossibility of coordinated action. We affluent ones are all beneficiaries of the enslavement of others; it's just mostly geographically far away enough for us to remain comfortable.

We are all being screwed (to varying degrees) by the financial elites, in a system in which we are all hopelessly complicit. We expect our politicians to do something, but our politicians are too cowardly, or stupid, or "in the pockets of the plutocrats" or just plain impotent to do anything, other than make vague promises, about doing "something".

The angry outrage is the outcry of systemic impotence; it's all noise in a deadly vacuum. Predictably, once some degree of the customary comfort is restored, we will settle back into, as much as resources allow, "business as usual", and we'll do that until resources no longer allow. That is what is coming; whether next year, or in five, ten, twenty or fifty years.

The greatest problems we collectively face are resource depletion, destruction of habitat, species extinctions, destruction of soils by the industrial agricultural machine that is needed to feed our absurdly over-bloated numbers. But these much more dire (than mere "racism") problems scarcely get a serious mention by our, themselves mostly ridiculously comfortable, public intellectuals. (I'm not excluding myself; I'm ridiculously comfortable too).

I know this could be thought to be off-topic; but the bigger picture is more sorely needed now than ever before. What are we prepared to sacrifice to address the primary problem of overpopulation? Is there any measure which could be acceptable? Are we even able to talk about it?

Split this off into another thread if you like: I'd love to hear what the brightest minds have to say about our greatest problems and the one greatest problem that is behind them all; overpopulation.