2 ms·

>But when people say "abolish the police" they do not come across as meaning "reduce the scope of policing". Some people, sure, but that's understandable given

>But when people say "abolish the police" they do not come across as meaning "reduce the scope of policing". Some people, sure, but that's understandable given their extremely dire situation. Regardless, in my experience, most people do in fact flesh out reasonable ideas while using the phrase. Further, by far most "phrases" I've heard in person are of the "defund/reform" variety. But of course "abolishment" gets disproportionate attention, and there's always the trap of just listening to news sources and online forums where the phrase "abolish the police" is quoted with no chance given to the people for more context.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I agree that the ideas put forth are generally reasonable but a national political slogan shouldn't require "but wait I don't mean that in the literal sense" explanation. You can't have a catch phrase and then complain when it's taken literally. A phrase like that was a marketing disaster waiting to happen.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  I agree - it's perfectly reasonable to take it literally. It's not equivalent to the mostly-willing-misinterpretation of the phrase "black lives matter". However, I don't think it's as simple as "complaining when taken literally". My point is that people should be more charitable - this phrase didn't originate from a committee's meditations. The situation it arose from is terrifying, disastrous, intolerable, an emergency, etc. On scales smaller than the national one, e.g. at community level, it's quite literally a fight for life and civilization. The extremity of the phrase is commensurate with the extremity of the circumstances - this is a spontaneous cry, not a diplomatic thought. We should talk about this situation with that reality in mind. Of course despite all this qualification, the phrase is used, if far from ubiquitously, and if you add onto that the way news and human drama naturally works, then the phrase never had a chance to not be a widespread part of the image of the national movement. We should not allow people to attempt to literally abolish the police, but we should try to understand why that has become one of their slogans, and not use it as a catch-all for dismissing the movement in a single repeated sentence (e.g. how the root post of this thread has done - not something you've done).

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

I agree that the ideas put forth are generally reasonable but a national political slogan shouldn't require "but wait I don't mean that in the literal sense" explanation. You can't have a catch phrase and then complain when it's taken literally. A phrase like that was a marketing disaster waiting to happen.

happytoexplain 6y ago
I agree - it's perfectly reasonable to take it literally. It's not equivalent to the mostly-willing-misinterpretation of the phrase "black lives matter". However, I don't think it's as simple as "complaining when taken literally". My point is that people should be more charitable - this phrase didn't originate from a committee's meditations. The situation it arose from is terrifying, disastrous, intolerable, an emergency, etc. On scales smaller than the national one, e.g. at community level, it's quite literally a fight for life and civilization. The extremity of the phrase is commensurate with the extremity of the circumstances - this is a spontaneous cry, not a diplomatic thought. We should talk about this situation with that reality in mind. Of course despite all this qualification, the phrase is used, if far from ubiquitously, and if you add onto that the way news and human drama naturally works, then the phrase never had a chance to not be a widespread part of the image of the national movement. We should not allow people to attempt to literally abolish the police, but we should try to understand why that has become one of their slogans, and not use it as a catch-all for dismissing the movement in a single repeated sentence (e.g. how the root post of this thread has done - not something you've done).