4 ms·

Police reform does not mean the police should not exist. It means the police should be reformed. So that is a strawman argument. Equating police reform with be

Police reform does not mean the police should not exist. It means the police should be reformed. So that is a strawman argument. Equating police reform with being anti-police plays right into propaganda.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
prewett 5y ago
Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. It might or might not be what the "defund" people are actually want, but it is what they are saying, so it isn't really a strawman argument. Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out).
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. Great idea, let's call the CEO of a grass roots protest and have their marketing department update the website copy. Do you realize what you are saying? >Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out). I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for. Kaepernick was trying to create a message about police reform for 5 years now, and no one cared about that - only the kneeling bit. "Defund the police" is the only message that has stuck. If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. There is no CEO of protests that develops a finely tuned marketing message for what is essentially a populist movement.
  - prewett 5y ago
    > I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for I think a very useful skill in life is accurately communicating what you actually want to say so that the receiver understands your message. The responsibility of communicating is on the protestor--they are the ones trying to change things. I don't think that the extremist language had anything to do with getting people talking about the problem. George Floyd's death is what got people talking about it. Seems to me the more radical people are advocating "defund the police" as a solution. If they really want police reform, why not just say that? They wouldn't alienate everyone who thinks that is a silly idea. So tactically it is a major blunder because they've needlessly lost support. Why would someone who disagrees with "defund the police" as a solution risk working with them--what if they actually believe what they say? > If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. This cuts both ways. Can I assume that you're good with the right wingers' extremism, too? And how are you going to keep it from escalating? They still aren't listening, better make the statement louder, maybe in blood this time? Extremism begets extremism. I am pretty opposed to extremism, and I think a large part of the problem in the US is that the only voices are the extreme ones shouting really loud. A group of friends driven by loud, extreme voices is dysfunctional, and larger groups are no different. Besides, reacting to a problem with extremes doesn't solve the problem, it only changes what problem you have. Historically it usually changes for the worst.
    - nemothekid 5y ago
      What you are asking for is for people to protest more nicely and to have a co-ordinated message. Ignoring the impossible ask of trying to get a single message from a decentralized movement, people have been asking for police reform. Black Lives Matter is founded on police reform. The original michael brown events was in 2014. I explicitly brought up Kapernick because he's been asking for reform in 2016! It's not until people starting saying defund did the message change from "well can we just have reform instead"? Protests have always been extreme and riots has been historically the best vehivle of change for the proletariat. People on the ground are rarely going to be amazing orators in explaining what they need and for a underprivileged group, being reasonable has never worked. You have WSPU escalating to violence for Women's Suffrage in the UK. You have the troubles in Ireland. You have the underbelly of the violent race riots in MLK's marches. And how do you keep it from escalating? By solving the underlying grievances people have. Most people don't turn to white supremacy through a pure ideological belief that the "white race" is superior. They start with system problems - increasing health costs, increasing housing costs and lack of upwards mobility, and in their search of their solutions they find someone who tells them what they want to hear. At the end of the day when you have people rioting in the streets the time for "rational" discourse has long passed. The people who are most loudly chanting defund the police have been trying to reform for almost _10 years_.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
astrange 5y ago
> Equating police reform with being anti-police plays right into propaganda. The people who started "defund the police" literally do not want there to be police. Sometimes they want to become the police, except they want to be called community violence activists, or therapists, or something. That was fine as a fringe position, but then a lot of other people took up the slogan and just declared that no, actually, it means totally different thing X but we're going to keep saying it. …Anyway, nobody is actually trying to do this, except Republicans in congress when they tried to block state funding in the CARES Act, so it doesn't matter.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  You're mixing up defund with abolition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement
  - astrange 5y ago
    I'm not. They're the same thing, the slogan was invented by police abolitionists. https://twitter.com/BlackVisionsMN/status/1266149723053883397 https://twitter.com/BlackVisionsMN/status/126614972305388339... https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1279148959139758080 https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1279148959139758080 It actually makes more sense this way, the confusion is when people who don't want to abolish the police still want to defund them.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      "Some activists want both things means they can't be distinct proposals" is like claiming the FSF and libertarians are the same group because there's a lot overlap.
      - astrange 5y ago
        The issue is that "defund" would actually work for the original activists' goals (abolishment), so I respect it even if I'm not sure what the world would be like after it. I don't think it helps anyone else's goals though. So I think they're mistaken to take it up. Also, it's easy to fight against (because your opponents can point to the abolitionists) and it makes you look bad to normal people (most people in the US like the police, including minorities, who are actually more socially conservative than white people). To stop misconduct a better message would be to define those people as "not the police" by, like, making it possible to fire them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

prewett 5y ago

Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. It might or might not be what the "defund" people are actually want, but it is what they are saying, so it isn't really a strawman argument. Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out).

nemothekid 5y ago
>Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them. Great idea, let's call the CEO of a grass roots protest and have their marketing department update the website copy. Do you realize what you are saying? >Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out). I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for. Kaepernick was trying to create a message about police reform for 5 years now, and no one cared about that - only the kneeling bit. "Defund the police" is the only message that has stuck. If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. There is no CEO of protests that develops a finely tuned marketing message for what is essentially a populist movement.
- prewett 5y ago
  > I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for I think a very useful skill in life is accurately communicating what you actually want to say so that the receiver understands your message. The responsibility of communicating is on the protestor--they are the ones trying to change things. I don't think that the extremist language had anything to do with getting people talking about the problem. George Floyd's death is what got people talking about it. Seems to me the more radical people are advocating "defund the police" as a solution. If they really want police reform, why not just say that? They wouldn't alienate everyone who thinks that is a silly idea. So tactically it is a major blunder because they've needlessly lost support. Why would someone who disagrees with "defund the police" as a solution risk working with them--what if they actually believe what they say? > If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. This cuts both ways. Can I assume that you're good with the right wingers' extremism, too? And how are you going to keep it from escalating? They still aren't listening, better make the statement louder, maybe in blood this time? Extremism begets extremism. I am pretty opposed to extremism, and I think a large part of the problem in the US is that the only voices are the extreme ones shouting really loud. A group of friends driven by loud, extreme voices is dysfunctional, and larger groups are no different. Besides, reacting to a problem with extremes doesn't solve the problem, it only changes what problem you have. Historically it usually changes for the worst.
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    What you are asking for is for people to protest more nicely and to have a co-ordinated message. Ignoring the impossible ask of trying to get a single message from a decentralized movement, people have been asking for police reform. Black Lives Matter is founded on police reform. The original michael brown events was in 2014. I explicitly brought up Kapernick because he's been asking for reform in 2016! It's not until people starting saying defund did the message change from "well can we just have reform instead"? Protests have always been extreme and riots has been historically the best vehivle of change for the proletariat. People on the ground are rarely going to be amazing orators in explaining what they need and for a underprivileged group, being reasonable has never worked. You have WSPU escalating to violence for Women's Suffrage in the UK. You have the troubles in Ireland. You have the underbelly of the violent race riots in MLK's marches. And how do you keep it from escalating? By solving the underlying grievances people have. Most people don't turn to white supremacy through a pure ideological belief that the "white race" is superior. They start with system problems - increasing health costs, increasing housing costs and lack of upwards mobility, and in their search of their solutions they find someone who tells them what they want to hear. At the end of the day when you have people rioting in the streets the time for "rational" discourse has long passed. The people who are most loudly chanting defund the police have been trying to reform for almost _10 years_.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

astrange 5y ago

> Equating police reform with being anti-police plays right into propaganda. The people who started "defund the police" literally do not want there to be police. Sometimes they want to become the police, except they want to be called community violence activists, or therapists, or something. That was fine as a fringe position, but then a lot of other people took up the slogan and just declared that no, actually, it means totally different thing X but we're going to keep saying it. …Anyway, nobody is actually trying to do this, except Republicans in congress when they tried to block state funding in the CARES Act, so it doesn't matter.

ceejayoz 5y ago
You're mixing up defund with abolition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement
- astrange 5y ago
  I'm not. They're the same thing, the slogan was invented by police abolitionists. https://twitter.com/BlackVisionsMN/status/1266149723053883397 https://twitter.com/BlackVisionsMN/status/126614972305388339... https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1279148959139758080 https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1279148959139758080 It actually makes more sense this way, the confusion is when people who don't want to abolish the police still want to defund them.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    "Some activists want both things means they can't be distinct proposals" is like claiming the FSF and libertarians are the same group because there's a lot overlap.
    - astrange 5y ago
      The issue is that "defund" would actually work for the original activists' goals (abolishment), so I respect it even if I'm not sure what the world would be like after it. I don't think it helps anyone else's goals though. So I think they're mistaken to take it up. Also, it's easy to fight against (because your opponents can point to the abolitionists) and it makes you look bad to normal people (most people in the US like the police, including minorities, who are actually more socially conservative than white people). To stop misconduct a better message would be to define those people as "not the police" by, like, making it possible to fire them.