Social Justice Activists Go Full Krazy and Demand the Police be Abolished

We’ve long known that social justice atheists are insufferable with their bloated sense of self-righteousness coupled to a slavish devotion to primitive emotions (the “id”), but it should also be more clear these days that it is probably also linked to the death of brain cells.

Consider the following June 8 post from social justice atheist PZ Myers entitled,  “Hallelujah!.”

The Minneapolis city council has committed to dismantling the police department!

Myers is happily excited about this.  Now, what type of person would be excited about “dismantling the police department?”  Criminals.  Ah, but I don’t think Myers is a criminal.  That leaves us with wild-eyed zealots.  And yeah, Myers would qualify there.  Look, you have to be a Far-Left Hyper-Extremist Zealot, with a brain long marinated in fanatic rhetoric and propaganda, to actually think dismantling the police is a good thing.

For example, try not to laugh at the idiocy of the Minneapolis politicians (idiocy applauded by Myers):

 While some council members have provided hints of what the changes might mean — sending mental health professionals or social workers to respond to certain emergencies, for example — the group did not present a single, unified vision for how they would replace policing in Minneapolis.

A woman is at home by herself late at night and a man with a ski-mask is trying to break in her back door.  Who is she going to call?  A social worker!  A therapist!!

Clearly, social justice dogma is toxic to brain cells.

But there is more:

Organizers with Black Visions said they too don’t have all the answers about what would replace the police department, but they said police can’t be reformed through initiatives like training and body cameras. This is the beginning of the process of putting together a “police-free future,” they vowed, by investing in more community initiatives like mental health and having community members respond to public safety issues.

Having community members respond to public safety issues?  You mean like vigilantes?  A street gang?  The mafia? A warlord?

There’s a reason these politicians are struggling so badly with “not having all the answers.”

But don’t worry.  Atheist scientist PZ Myers is completely stumped too:

I’m not sure what that’ll look like, but any organization that you can call for help that does not immediately dispatch armored thugs with guns will be preferable.

Given that Myers is intellectually incapable of envisioning how a city gets by without police, he retreats into the world of simple-minded stereotypes.  Y’see, all cops are “thugs.”  You too can believe that if you are willing to abandon critical thinking.  Which, if you think about it, is a necessary prerequisite to being a social justice atheist.  😉

This entry was posted in activism, antifa, social justice atheism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Social Justice Activists Go Full Krazy and Demand the Police be Abolished

  1. Isaac says:

    The people who are going to really, really, REALLY suffer from a defunded or abolished police department are low-income people.

    aka mostly minorities.

    aka poor people.

    aka, not PZ Myers. It isn’t going to be his problem.

    So, he gets points for being “woke” while actively harming all of the people he claims to care about. He knows this, he just doesn’t care. His morality appears to be based entirely without real principles, and is only a sort of show-morality that only serves the purposes of his own self-image.

    I wonder if this might be related to his lack of belief in objective morality even being real, or perhaps his lack of belief in any sort of Supreme Being or cosmic judge who will hold him accountable.

  2. Ilíon says:

    Clearly, social justice dogma is toxic to brain cells.

    ‘Justice’ is concept which admits no qualifiers: one one tries to add a qualifier the the term, one is no longer talking about justice, and whatever one intendeds with the qualifier, the end-result is injustice.

  3. Ilíon says:

    Isaac, in fairness to ol’ PZ, in his view, *he* is the Supreme Being who holds himself accountable.

    His morality appears to be based entirely without real principles, and is only a sort of show-morality that only serves the purposes of his own self-image.

    Recall, the “innocent pagans” (as Lewis called them) of old would change the garments of the idols of their gods before parading them through the streets. Ol’ PZ is just doing the same.

  4. I can’t help but think there must be a bizarre and incredibly childish sort of reverse logic at play here. A city with no crime will need no police, so if we get rid of the police it means we must not have any crime.

    I cannot see how any sane person expects this to work. Yes there are some bad police. Yes some of the tasks we expect police to perform might be better performed by social workers or the like, but not ALL of them!

    Do they genuinely believe that if they get rid of the Bad People With Guns then everybody will just be nice to each other?

  5. TFBW says:

    It’s hard to identify anything resembling a coherent belief in the minds of these people. Their thoughts are a wash of conflicting slogans which they selectively parrot given the appropriate stimulus. Mostly they just want to be in charge and have their way on everything all the time.

  6. I know that postmodernist ideology sees human society as nothing more than competition between various power groups with different truth claims, and that empowering the perceived underdog at the expense of the perceived oppressor is the way to promote justice, but I’ve never seen that put into practice in such an utterly idiotic way.

  7. pennywit says:

    “Defund the police” and “Dismantle the police” were bad choices message-wise. Aside from the loons in Seattle, the real goal is something closer to “reinvent the police” or “reimagine the police.” The core principle is to make police again accountable to the people they serve and eliminate the culture that lets a number of police officers feel they can mistreat citizens … and other officers feel like they have to allow such things to happen.

  8. TFBW says:

    Aside from the loons in Seattle …

    Don’t forget the loons in Minneapolis. This story was about them only a couple of days ago. Scroll up and refresh your memory.

    I wonder where the next set of loons we’ll have to overlook will spring up. I’m thinking that Portland Antifa isn’t going to want to be left behind by the whole insurrection trend, but they basically run the place already, so maybe there’s no need.

  9. Michael says:

    “Defund the police” and “Dismantle the police” were bad choices message-wise. Aside from the loons in Seattle, the real goal is something closer to “reinvent the police” or “reimagine the police.”

    I’ve grown very cynical about activists. So if someone wants to “reinvent the police” or “reimagine the police”, then let them first publicly and harshly condemn the “Defund the police” and “Dismantlethe police” message. Also, condemn the anarchists and Antifa. If they can’t, or only offer up mealy-mouthed attempts to distance themselves, I would think the “reinvent the police” or “reimagine the police” crowd are sneaky liars waiting for the Overton window to shift a little more.

  10. Ilíon says:

    The single-most significant driver of acts of police misconduct toward the citizenry is that all levels of government (i.e. the people who rule us and who give the police their tasks) misuse the policing power as a revenue-generator. Remove the ability of the bureaucracies to *profit* from the imposition of fines and penalties upon the citizens, and most acts of police misconduct will vanish overnight.

  11. I am seeing a LOT of people to whom I am connected on social media coming out with the standard line “Black Lives Matter isn’t saying ONLY Black Lives Matter, it’s just saying they are particularly in need of help at this time” or words to that effect.

    That may be true in many cases, but within the context of postmodern power struggles that seems an extremely naive view. It would seem that there are deeply ideologically committed people who ARE pushing for their own group to have power at everyone else’s expense, and BLM seems to be one of the tools they’re using to do so, while also pushing the rhetoric that nobody is allowed to disagree with it for fear of being labelled a racist (the modern-day equivalent of a witch).

    I find it incredibly depressing that so many of my friends, while loving and well-meaning Christians, seem to be so naive about the corruptness of human hearts, or are completely unable to see outside of the “Donald Trump is bad so anyone who opposes him is good” neo-polarisation.

  12. Isaac says:

    The entire crowd of thousands of people who surrounded the Minneapolis mayor’s home were there to ABOLISH the police. As their spokeswoman said, “we don’t want no cops.” When mayor Frey insisted that he would completely transform and reform the police department, but had to draw the line at abolishing cops completely, they sent him packing. The only thing missing was tar and feathers.

    That and, for every Democrat damage-controller with a blue check on Twitter insisting that “defund the police” doesn’t mean “defund the police,” there are multiple replies from actual BLM activists sayin, “wrong, we want to defund the police.”

    The “they don’t really mean that, we’re not crazy” crowd has the biggest platforms, but they don’t have the numbers. Eventually, they won’t have the platforms either.

  13. grodrigues says:

    “A woman is at home by herself late at night and a man with a ski-mask is trying to break in her back door. Who is she going to call?”

    Ghostbusters.

  14. That a senior elected official basically couldn’t answer that question was seriously alarming. I am glad I don’t live in the US right now.

  15. Kevin says:

    There’s only one particular political party struggling with that question. The other party is sane.

    On that question anyway.

  16. TFBW says:

    “Defund the police” and “Dismantle the police” were bad choices message-wise. Aside from the loons in Seattle, the real goal is something closer to “reinvent the police” or “reimagine the police.”

    In the face of such moderate-liberal insistence that they’re not really demanding something so insane, the people behind these bad choices are, of course, doubling down on them. I cite, by way of example, an opinion piece published in the New York Times on June 12 with the headline, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police,” subheading, “Because reform won’t happen.” I haven’t read the article content, but I’m prepared to assume that this is one of those rare cases where the headlines accurately summarise it.

    I’m all for charitable interpretations, but one still has a responsibility to back down and accept the crazy interpretation when the people behind the message clarify that they are, in fact, completely bonkers. Having said that, the interpretation, “reinvent the police,” probably isn’t too far off, although the truth of the matter might not be as palatable as the phrase makes it sound. After all, a lynch mob is a form of policing, if we’re being broad in our interpretation.

  17. Ilíon says:

    People with insane and/or wicked goals frequently try to hide the insanity or wickedness. But people with sensible-and-moral goals never try to present the goals as insane and/or wicked.

    So, if someone’s goals *sound* insane and/or wicked, then the only *rational* choice is to believe them that that is exactly what they intend.

  18. TFBW says:

    @Ilíon: that makes sense, but the problem is that misrepresentation is extremely common. If someone’s aims or goals sound wicked or insane, it’s usually because those aims and goals are being filtered through a hostile intermediary who is distorting them. In this case, we see the same distortion happening in reverse: the sympathetic moderate-liberal folks adjusting the radical message to bring it back into the realms of sanity.

  19. The moderate-liberals must presumably think they can keep the radical ones under control or that the radical ones are a small enough minority they’ll never gain any real power. That worked well in 1930s Germany.

  20. Ilíon says:

    TFBW:

    Certainly. But clearly, I was talking about people themselves presenting their own goals (whether honestly or not); and concluding that one should take another at his word when his goals, as he presents them, are insane and/or wicked.

  21. Ilíon says:

    There is no such thing as a “moderate-liberal” (nor, for that matter, is there any such thing as a “moderate”, as that term is commonly used); there are only leftists who try to invoke unprincipled exceptions in a futile attempt to avoid going to all the insane and/or wicked places that their leftist presuppositions demand.

  22. TFBW says:

    “Moderate” is the polite way of describing those who think that the middle of the herd is a safe place to be. “Moderate-liberal” is, similarly, the polite way of describing those who want to be just far enough off centre to exhibit their political leanings in the form of a fashion statement, without getting too close to the fringe. “Moderate-conservative” is similar, except that conservatives don’t generally make fashion statements; rather, they’re afraid of being called nasty names (-ists and -phobes) by liberals, so they compromise.

    I have a separate rant about principles, or the lack thereof. Short version: modern politics has no principles, only slogans.

  23. pennywit says:

    “Moderate” is the polite way of describing those who think that the middle of the herd is a safe place to be. “Moderate-liberal” is, similarly, the polite way of describing those who want to be just far enough off centre to exhibit their political leanings in the form of a fashion statement, without getting too close to the fringe. “Moderate-conservative” is similar, except that conservatives don’t generally make fashion statements; rather, they’re afraid of being called nasty names (-ists and -phobes) by liberals, so they compromise.

    Now that’s just hogwash. There are indeed plenty of left-wing loons demanding that police be almost completely shut down (something that, interestingly, puts them in the same column as a few libertarians!). But there is a legitimate center-left position that favors modest police reforms, and another legitimate position that’s further left (but not in the “abolish” column) that favors effectively disbanding police departments and rebuilding them from the ground up.

    These aren’t “fashion statements.” They’re ideas and positions that exist on a continuum.

  24. pennywit says:

    And when I say “rebuild from the ground up,” the idea is not just to round up the bad actors like George Chauvin, or the police officers who knocked down Martin Gugino in Buffalo, but to excise the culture that led Chauvin’s fellow officers to stand by while he killed George Floyd, or led the Buffalo police to say Gugino “tripped and fell.”

    There have been reforms and such after previous incidents of police violence against citizens, but there’s a sense on the left (ranging from moderate left to far left) that these reforms are insufficient and that the rooted-in police culture (including unions that always defend bad actors) needs to be removed if we are to have a better police force.

  25. TFBW says:

    These aren’t “fashion statements.” They’re ideas and positions that exist on a continuum.

    Those two ideas aren’t at all mutually exclusive.

  26. Ilíon says:

    Also, there really isn’t a continuum on which leftist “ideas an positions” exist. On the one hand are the “ideas an positions”, all bunched-up together (call it a “superposition”) out in Insanesville. And on the other hand are the “soft leftists” — whom TFBW says are “politely” (i.e. euphemistically) denoted as “moderate” — who, while *accepting* the premises which lead inescapably to Insanesville, vainly imagine that, by means of raising one or more “unprinicpled exceptions“, they will be allowed to get off the bus before the end of the line. But then the “hard-leftists” always demand the bus-pass be punched one more time, and the “soft-leftists” cave one more time — for they have to principle by which to say “No!” to the latest insane leftist “ideas an positions”.

  27. Michael says:

    And when I say “rebuild from the ground up,” the idea is not just to round up the bad actors like George Chauvin, or the police officers who knocked down Martin Gugino in Buffalo, but to excise the culture that led Chauvin’s fellow officers to stand by while he killed George Floyd, or led the Buffalo police to say Gugino “tripped and fell.”

    But who is going to do the “rebuilding?” Screaming actvists? Extremist politicians who have long thrived off the corruption inherent in one party cities? Intellectually inbred actvist-academics who deceive the public into thinking they are “scholars?” I say before any “rebuilding” is done lets first find out who are the rebuilders and let’s see their plan.

  28. TFBW says:

    Now that’s just hogwash.

    I had my pithy one-liner, earlier, and I think it made a point worth contemplating, but I’m going to respond in a more serious manner now because I want to explain in earnest why this is not hogwash.

    You speak of legitimate positions on a spectrum. Ilíon raises a fair question as to their actual rational legitimacy, but I’ll grant legitimacy for the sake of argument, so long as by “legitimate” you mean little more than, “a reasonable-sounding case can be made for the position.” Said case might not stand up to a lot of challenges, but before another steps forward and issues such a challenge, the case might seem reasonable to the ordinary man. You cite three such positions on a spectrum, and say they’re not fashion statements.

    In principle, you could be right, but any examples would be exceptions to a much more general rule of me being right. To be fair, “fashion statement” is a slightly flippant way of putting it, but I employ flippancy in careful measure. So many people make such a big display of their political stance, you see; wanting to be seen to hold the right (or more typically the Left) positions on things. Indeed, it’s getting worse: activists are now demanding public acts of submission and fealty to their cause, threatening public humiliation at best and physical harm at worst for defiance. Not all of the public performance is virtue signalling any more: some of it is people actually being browbeaten into submission, and some of it is plain old capitulation in the hope of avoiding harm. Up until these most recent developments, however, that wasn’t the case.

    So, point one is that if this weren’t so much fashion, people wouldn’t be making such a public display of it; showing it off for likes on social media and approval from peers. Beliefs are meant to guide actions, not be conspicuously displayed in public. I have no beef with public protests, so long as they assemble peacefully and do not hold the rest of society hostage, but for some people it’s a lifestyle — a substitute religion, and a highly Pharisaical one.

    As to the reasonableness of the positions, that does nothing to diminish my point even if it’s true. The question is not whether a reasonable defence can be made of the positions, as almost any position can have some sort of reasonable defence constructed for it; rather, the question is how one came to defend the position in the first place. Was it arrived at as a matter of principle, or as a matter of personal taste? Of whim? Of impulse? Of emotional leaning? If one of the latter, has it ever been critically examined, or has one simply done what most people do: found enough reasonable-sounding arguments in support of it that one feels no need to question it?

    The average man in the street holds opinions moulded primarily by his personality type and upbringing. He will be more or less orderly, more or less conscientious, more or less attracted to novel experience, and so on. He will have been raised in an environment where certain norms are taken for granted, and his personality may incline him to rebel or conform relative to those norms. His position on the scale of “liberal” to “conservative” will largely be an expression of his personality and be relative to his social environment.

    This is the expanded form of my original, more flippantly-phrased paragraph. It’s not hogwash, and we might have fewer people getting worked up to the point of maiming each other if more people understood it as such.

  29. pennywit says:

    But who is going to do the “rebuilding?” Screaming actvists? Extremist politicians who have long thrived off the corruption inherent in one party cities? Intellectually inbred actvist-academics who deceive the public into thinking they are “scholars?” I say before any “rebuilding” is done lets first find out who are the rebuilders and let’s see their plan.

    That’s what elections are for.

  30. Can you imagine the scale of the protests if Trump wins again?

  31. TFBW says:

    If things don’t change soon, it won’t matter who wins the next election. If Trump wins, rioting mobs will try to burn everything down and be shot by 2A locals who just want to be left alone. If Trump loses, rioting mobs will burn everything down to teach the Trump voters a lesson, and be shot by 2A locals who just want to be left alone.

    Pennywit says, “that’s what elections are for.” If you don’t get the rioting under control, nobody will believe that the government is in charge anymore, and that’s when the ballot box goes away and the bullet box comes out. At this point in the history of the USA, you either need to be a rioter or a billionaire to have any say in anything. God help you all if the gun owners decide that this isn’t a temporary state of affairs which can be solved at the next election.

  32. Ilíon says:

    Sadly, that does appear to be where the leftists are taking us.

  33. I can’t see any other way this ends. The leftists are never going to back down. The majority of ordinary US citizens can likely only be pushed so far.

  34. Ilíon says:

    … The majority of ordinary US citizens can likely only be pushed so far.

    Though, if the Covid-19 Plandemic/Dem Panic taught us anything, it’s that a near majority of “ordinary US citizens” *love* being pushed around.

  35. TFBW says:

    Yeah, but even a lot of the lock-me-down-harder types have started to raise an eyebrow, what with the Powers That Be saying it’s perfectly safe to go on mass BLM protests (which turn into burn-loot-murder riots), while still insisting that it’s unacceptable to protest the lockdown, or go to the beach, or operate a small business.

  36. I’ve certainly noticed on my social media that those who have consistently expressed faux outrage at people deliberately breaching social distancing are strangely silent when it comes to BLM protests.

    I’ve lost quite a bit of respect for some of my “friends” in recent times.

  37. Isaac says:

    Some on the Left (who lack the capacity to self-fact-check) are pointing to Camden, New Jersey as an example of successful “abolition” of police.

    (Camden is to police abolition as Scandinavia is to socialism.)

    The embarrassing truth is that Camden simply disbanded their police force in order to get rid of the union, then hired back nearly twice as many cops including most of the ones laid off.

    Better training + more cops – public employee unions = less crime and less abuse.

    That’s a solution that could easily work in most big cities, but it’s an entirely Republican sort of thing to do, ergo it’s rarely been tried.

  38. Ilíon says:

    Yeah, but even a lot of the lock-me-down-harder types have started to raise an eyebrow, …

    I hope so; but I still see a lot of people who seem happy-proud to wear their Badge of Submission. Still, it’s also a fact that most of the out-and-about I do is job-related, and that involves taking elderly and/or sickly people to their medical appointments … and the hospitals and doctors’ offices are *really* LARPing the gag that the Chines Bat Flu is the New Black Death.

  39. Ilíon says:

    The board of health for my county (in Ohio) is currently reporting 266 ‘confirmed cases’, and 4 deaths, from the Chinese Bat Flu; that’s YTD. Back on March 3, before the bureaucrats and politicians who rule us egged each other on to mass-hysteria, the county reported 530 cases, and 4 death, from the regular flu … for *just* the month of January.

  40. Ilíon says:

    My county has a population of @125,000. Assuming an average life-span of 80 years, from that population, one would expect 1562 death per year from all causes.

    So, yeah, 4 deaths in six months (*) on top of 1562 (**) is the New Black Death.

    (*) for, as it turns out, the Chinese Bat Flu has been circulating in the US since at least early January
    (**) and that’s assuming that these four people would not have died otherwise, whereas we already know that most of the deaths from the New Black Death are of people already expected to die in the very short-term.

  41. StardustyPsyche says:

    OP
    “social justice atheists are insufferable with their bloated sense of self-righteousness”
    Indeed, For “real” atheists think Harris, Hitchens, Ali, Mason, Saad…you know, the atheists who think SJWs and feminists are idiots, or worse.

    “A woman is at home by herself late at night and a man with a ski-mask is trying to break in her back door.”
    That literally was George Floyd (except the ski mask part, maybe too dumb, maybe so brazen, dunno). BTW, she was black, so that tells you how much black lives mattered to George Floyd.

    ” if you are willing to abandon critical thinking. Which, if you think about it, is a necessary prerequisite to being a social justice atheist.”
    Indeed, just goes to show, the word atheist just means one does not believe in god, which at first blush certainly is a step in the direction of rationality, for an adult, but the person who is smart enough to reject all god stories may be incredibly stupid in other ways, hence the PZs of the world.

  42. Kevin says:

    but the person who is smart enough to reject all god stories may be incredibly stupid in other ways, hence the PZs of the world.

    Or they’re stupid in both ways, but who can say for sure?

  43. I don’t see the connection between intelligence and rejection of God. I see it asserted without evidence, one might almost say as an article of blind faith.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.