5 ms·

I'm guessing it would've been better if they went with "Distribute funds properly" instead of "Defund the police".

by bserge 5y ago

bena 5y ago
But they don't want that either. They want to keep everything they have and have other people handle all of that stuff they don't want to.
- RankingMember 5y ago
  Bit of a broad brush there, innit? Who is "they"?
  - bena 5y ago
    The police. It's funny how you question my use of "they" but not the person I responded to. His "they" isn't broad?
    - RankingMember 5y ago
      He's talking about a known slogan. You're speculating as to what that group "wants".
      - bena 5y ago
        Those slogans describe things the group would want. Your objections are rooted in a bias you aren't willing to admit.
        RankingMember 5y ago
        You and I both have innate biases that any objections we have would be inevitably colored by, so that's not really a material statement. What I'm saying is that when you say something like: > They want to keep everything they have and have other people handle all of that stuff they don't want to ...you're criticizing a composited caricature that only exists in such a monolithic form in your head.
        bena 5y ago
        Fine. Find me one police station that will willingly cut its own budget and surrender the unnecessary military gear it has acquired. The police are fine with not doing those things as long as it doesn't come at their expense. You are trying to find ways to criticize my statement without acknowledging that your criticism would apply to the other poster. It's not flying.
        RankingMember 5y ago
        That's definitely not happening (police cutting their own budget). This back and forth is a little funny because I think we're both on the same page I think except for the procedural implications of the word "they" and which contexts its use may be considered over-broad. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that aspect, but I appreciate the conversation.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into cheap ideological flamewar. It's predictable, boring, and nasty, regardless of what you're flaming for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - bena 5y ago
    The only way what I said is indicative of a "cheap, ideological flamewar" is if what I said wasn't true. And the person who "disagreed" with me wound up saying he did agree with me. That the police do not want to lose budget. But they do want to do less. He essentially opposed that I used the pronoun "they" to refer to "the police".
    - dang 5y ago
      This argument is like sending a letter bomb in the mail (not that anyone does that anymore) and then protesting that what you wrote in your letter was true. Obviously one can take a true statement (I'm not saying yours were true or not true, just speaking hypothetically) and wrap it up in a damaging flamewar package. Not only that, but if your claims are true, then you discredit not only yourself and your views by posting this way, but also the truth itself, which actually does harm. One who knows truths that others aren't aware of is under a higher responsibility than that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... But whether you care about that or not, please follow HN's rules if you want to keep posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - bena 5y ago
        But I disagree with your analogy about the letter bomb. Even the guy I was talking with said he enjoyed the discussion. I'm just not getting it here. Obviously. We had an exchange, we came to an understanding of sorts. No feelings were injured (that I can tell).
        5y ago
zzzeek 5y ago
it would not have attracted any attention. it's hard to say if a boring statement like "allocate funds correctly" that inspires no critical thinking at all is more or less productive than an inflammatory one like "defund the police!" that probably gets a lot of people thinking about the issue, while at the same time causing a lot of reactionary movements to said slogan that work against it's general goals, at least in the short term.
gherkinnn 5y ago
Only absolutist sentiments make good slogans.
- RhysU 5y ago
  I want this on a t-shirt. It is funny with an exclamation point.
pavlov 5y ago
You can write a polite editorial in WaPo or Bloomberg with that title, but nobody will remember it five minutes later.
lostcolony 5y ago
We have approximately 400 years of "black people should be treated equal to whites". 50+ since the Civil Rights Era of "hey, there's some systemic racial issues we need to address as a country". Sure, you can argue that "Black Lives Matter" is just too hard to understand, but it -has- brought attention to the issue.

I'm guessing it would've been better if they went with "Distribute funds properly" instead of "Defund the police".

by bserge 5y ago

I'm guessing it would've been better if they went with "Distribute funds properly" instead of "Defund the police".

bena 5y ago

But they don't want that either. They want to keep everything they have and have other people handle all of that stuff they don't want to.

RankingMember 5y ago
Bit of a broad brush there, innit? Who is "they"?
- bena 5y ago
  The police. It's funny how you question my use of "they" but not the person I responded to. His "they" isn't broad?
  - RankingMember 5y ago
    He's talking about a known slogan. You're speculating as to what that group "wants".
    - bena 5y ago
      Those slogans describe things the group would want. Your objections are rooted in a bias you aren't willing to admit.
      - RankingMember 5y ago
        You and I both have innate biases that any objections we have would be inevitably colored by, so that's not really a material statement. What I'm saying is that when you say something like: > They want to keep everything they have and have other people handle all of that stuff they don't want to ...you're criticizing a composited caricature that only exists in such a monolithic form in your head.
        bena 5y ago
        Fine. Find me one police station that will willingly cut its own budget and surrender the unnecessary military gear it has acquired. The police are fine with not doing those things as long as it doesn't come at their expense. You are trying to find ways to criticize my statement without acknowledging that your criticism would apply to the other poster. It's not flying.
        RankingMember 5y ago
        That's definitely not happening (police cutting their own budget). This back and forth is a little funny because I think we're both on the same page I think except for the procedural implications of the word "they" and which contexts its use may be considered over-broad. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that aspect, but I appreciate the conversation.
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into cheap ideological flamewar. It's predictable, boring, and nasty, regardless of what you're flaming for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bena 5y ago
  The only way what I said is indicative of a "cheap, ideological flamewar" is if what I said wasn't true. And the person who "disagreed" with me wound up saying he did agree with me. That the police do not want to lose budget. But they do want to do less. He essentially opposed that I used the pronoun "they" to refer to "the police".
  - dang 5y ago
    This argument is like sending a letter bomb in the mail (not that anyone does that anymore) and then protesting that what you wrote in your letter was true. Obviously one can take a true statement (I'm not saying yours were true or not true, just speaking hypothetically) and wrap it up in a damaging flamewar package. Not only that, but if your claims are true, then you discredit not only yourself and your views by posting this way, but also the truth itself, which actually does harm. One who knows truths that others aren't aware of is under a higher responsibility than that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... But whether you care about that or not, please follow HN's rules if you want to keep posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - bena 5y ago
      But I disagree with your analogy about the letter bomb. Even the guy I was talking with said he enjoyed the discussion. I'm just not getting it here. Obviously. We had an exchange, we came to an understanding of sorts. No feelings were injured (that I can tell).
      - 5y ago

zzzeek 5y ago

it would not have attracted any attention. it's hard to say if a boring statement like "allocate funds correctly" that inspires no critical thinking at all is more or less productive than an inflammatory one like "defund the police!" that probably gets a lot of people thinking about the issue, while at the same time causing a lot of reactionary movements to said slogan that work against it's general goals, at least in the short term.

gherkinnn 5y ago

Only absolutist sentiments make good slogans.

RhysU 5y ago
I want this on a t-shirt. It is funny with an exclamation point.

pavlov 5y ago

You can write a polite editorial in WaPo or Bloomberg with that title, but nobody will remember it five minutes later.

lostcolony 5y ago

We have approximately 400 years of "black people should be treated equal to whites". 50+ since the Civil Rights Era of "hey, there's some systemic racial issues we need to address as a country". Sure, you can argue that "Black Lives Matter" is just too hard to understand, but it -has- brought attention to the issue.