Tough question actually, because I know what it is intended to mean, and I also know what a lot of its most passionate devotees want it to mean. I didn't disag

Tough question actually, because I know what it is intended to mean, and I also know what a lot of its most passionate devotees want it to mean. I didn't disagree with any of the thinking behind it: shifting more funding and responsibility to social support/health professionals, and focusing more on the conditions that spawn crime rather than just stamping it out as it shows up. Seems like the difference between actually fixing the holes in your house vs. putting all your money into duct tape and basins. The first step towards fixing a broken system is identifying the root causes. But there's that, and there's the vast majority of people I know who say every cop is an evil fascist and society would be better with no law enforcement at all. Given how many people think—and want—"abolish the police" to mean abolition in the most literal sense, it is hard to look past that definition, even if it's not the intended one. It's simple: Radicalism breeds radicalism. I don't like those redneck survivalist guys with all the guns either, but it's getting a lot harder to tell them their doomsday fantasies are stupid when so many on the left sound like they consider CHOP to be a blueprint for a better society.