6 ms·

That’s disingenuous, given that the movement is about allowing police to only focus on security rather than trying to solve every societal ill. https://mobile.

by p49k 5y ago

That’s disingenuous, given that the movement is about allowing police to only focus on security rather than trying to solve every societal ill. https://mobile.twitter.com/nskorpen/status/1284144925039263744 https://mobile.twitter.com/nskorpen/status/12841449250392637...

Rebelgecko 5y ago
Who gets to gatekeep what the movement is actually about? I've seen quite a few at protests with signs saying "abolish the police". Seems like those people don't want police to focus on security. AFAIK there hasn't been any polls to see preferences for the desired level of defunding w/in the movement. I wouldn't be surprised if 100% defunding was a plurality (but not a majority)
- harimau777 5y ago
  The way that I would approach it is to try to take the strongest version of a given argument; particularly if that is the argument that the leaders/spokesmen in a movement are making.
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    It's certainly not the way disfavored movements or ideas are handled.
    - harimau777 5y ago
      What do you mean? Outside of trolls, it seems like a common approach.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I've seen quite a few at protests with signs saying "abolish the police". The abolish/disband faction is a different faction from the defund faction, sharing with the other that both believe the reform cycle where police problems are dealt woth by increasing budgets for retraining or other reform measures, reducing resources for other services, which results in police roles expanding, resulting in new police problems from inserting armed law enforcement into nee and inappropriate roles needs to be broken. The “defund” crowd says, lets wind that the other way and drive non-core roles and the funding to go with them to agencies outside of the police departments, so that the police department is focussed on roles that require armed law enforcement. The “disband/abolish” crowd says lets go further, and redesign community services without an all-encompassing centralized paramilitary law enforcement service, with enforcement arms where necessary within agencies with focuses other than “law enforcement”. (There's a fringe within the disband/abolish faction that would eliminate armed law enforcement as a local government function entirely, but they aren't typical of the disband/abolish movement much less the defund movement or an umbrella including both defund and disband/abolish.)
  - ixacto 5y ago
    This kinda feels like gatekeeping the “defund” movement. When I walk by the 2MM house on Capitol Hill in Seattle with the “yes we actually mean defund the police” it’s just a bunch of misguided upper class people who are too sheltered to really know danger in their lives.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > The abolish/disband faction is a different faction from the defund faction Yes, but both use the slogan ‘defund the police’.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Yes, but both use the slogan ‘defund the police’. No, the abolish/disband faction tends to use “abolish (or disband) the police”.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Not according to this detailed reporting by vice: https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-abolish-the-police-mean https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-... “For the last week, mainstream publications and centrist thinkers have tied themselves in knots trying to explain that when activists say they want to defund the police, they don’t really mean that; “defund the police” is a slogan that actually means “make police departments smaller and more accountable,” they say. But many people who say “defund the police” mean exactly that—defund and abolish police departments, and use that funding to lift up communities.” Claiming it to be a clear cut distinction simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
        ixacto 5y ago
        The defund the policers are getting me to probably vote R in 2022/2024, even though IMO Trump will never be someone I’d vote for, in which case I’ll not vote at all. Democrats should have immediately distanced themselves from this movement.
        5y ago
- tolbish 5y ago
  Wouldn't you rather the police focus on security rather than try to tacke every societal ill? One doesn't need to be a part of any labeled movement to agree with that.
zepto 5y ago
It isn’t even remotely disingenuous to say that ‘defund the police’ is literally about abolition. It is widely reported on: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-abolish-the-police-mean https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democrats-mean-it-when-they-say-they-want-to-defund-or-abolish-the-police/ar-BB1fCbLU https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democrats-mean-it-when-the...
- brundolf 5y ago
  I think the movement is not homogenous. "Defunding" can be partial.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Indeed - which is why claiming that the movement is only saying only one thing is misleading.
mc32 5y ago
Unfortunately that’s not what the vocal proponents of defund the police mean. When asked they say yes it literally means defund and reduce the police force. It's like saying, here, we'll keep the price of a box of cereal the same (but reduce the mass on the sly).
- haswell 5y ago
  I get that some vocal proponents mean “defund” in a very literal sense, but isn’t this always the case with these things? There is always a group on the fringe, regardless of political faction, that wants the most extreme version of a policy. The existence of such groups doesn’t mean that serious policy makers are actually on board with that extreme, nor do the majority of folks who support a more nuanced application of the policy (e.g. change how police are funded vs “defund”). So I hear you, and yes, those people exist, but giving too much credence to the extremist position and wielding it as a scary straw man against the movement is also problematic.
  - zepto 5y ago
    It’s a position definitely represented by real policy makers, and that actual cities have attempted to implement. It’s not accurate to call it a straw man. The converse of your complaint is true - people pretending the extremes don’t have any power, and using the benign version of the phrase as cover. Who wouldn’t agree with channeling funds to more appropriate professionals to deal with non-criminal situations that the police are currently drawn into? The problem is not with this reasonable sounding policy objective. It’s that there are real policy makers who do mean abolish. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... The New York Times is not known for publishing ‘extremism’. It publishes mainstream opinions.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Even viewing the situation charitably, the ostensible reformers here jumped behind a slogan that literally sounds like “eliminate police funding.” It’s like getting behind a “shut down immigration” slogan then claiming you really mean to shut down family based immigration in favor of a point system. It’s not just bad messaging. Police reformers got behind an inflammatory and extreme slogan and realized after the fact that they had overplayed their hand and overestimated support for the extreme position.
ALittleLight 5y ago
That comic suggests the police are not supposed to handle things like gang violence or domestic violence? Too bad they didn't label those rocks in the second panel, I'm curious to see who is supposed to take care of gang violence if not the police. "Defund the police" is a broad slogan endorsed by supporters of everything from police reform to police abolitionists. That makes it hard to know what anyone is talking about in terms of defunding the police. When someone says "Well, I think we have to have police" then the defund advocate can just explain what the phrase "really means" (to that specific advocate). To use just a single rock from your comic example - saying "I think we should invest in job placement, education, and drug addiction programs to help mitigate the homeless problem" is really different from saying "Defund the police." For one thing, it lets people know what you are talking about - reducing the burden that homeless people place on police by reducing the number of in-need homeless. Suggesting a specific solution also focuses the conversation on solving problems. Defunding the police is pretty unpopular[1]. The idea is opposed by the majority in all demographics, both major political parties, and supported by only 18% of Americans. My intuition is that solutions to specific sub-problems with policing (e.g. how will you address homelessness) would be much more popular and productive. Plus, you need to have the alternate solutions in place prior to defunding the police. 1- https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-03/usat-ipsos_racial_injustice_topline_030421.pdf https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...

by p49k 5y ago

Rebelgecko 5y ago

Who gets to gatekeep what the movement is actually about? I've seen quite a few at protests with signs saying "abolish the police". Seems like those people don't want police to focus on security. AFAIK there hasn't been any polls to see preferences for the desired level of defunding w/in the movement. I wouldn't be surprised if 100% defunding was a plurality (but not a majority)

harimau777 5y ago
The way that I would approach it is to try to take the strongest version of a given argument; particularly if that is the argument that the leaders/spokesmen in a movement are making.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  It's certainly not the way disfavored movements or ideas are handled.
  - harimau777 5y ago
    What do you mean? Outside of trolls, it seems like a common approach.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I've seen quite a few at protests with signs saying "abolish the police". The abolish/disband faction is a different faction from the defund faction, sharing with the other that both believe the reform cycle where police problems are dealt woth by increasing budgets for retraining or other reform measures, reducing resources for other services, which results in police roles expanding, resulting in new police problems from inserting armed law enforcement into nee and inappropriate roles needs to be broken. The “defund” crowd says, lets wind that the other way and drive non-core roles and the funding to go with them to agencies outside of the police departments, so that the police department is focussed on roles that require armed law enforcement. The “disband/abolish” crowd says lets go further, and redesign community services without an all-encompassing centralized paramilitary law enforcement service, with enforcement arms where necessary within agencies with focuses other than “law enforcement”. (There's a fringe within the disband/abolish faction that would eliminate armed law enforcement as a local government function entirely, but they aren't typical of the disband/abolish movement much less the defund movement or an umbrella including both defund and disband/abolish.)
- ixacto 5y ago
  This kinda feels like gatekeeping the “defund” movement. When I walk by the 2MM house on Capitol Hill in Seattle with the “yes we actually mean defund the police” it’s just a bunch of misguided upper class people who are too sheltered to really know danger in their lives.
- zepto 5y ago
  > The abolish/disband faction is a different faction from the defund faction Yes, but both use the slogan ‘defund the police’.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Yes, but both use the slogan ‘defund the police’. No, the abolish/disband faction tends to use “abolish (or disband) the police”.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Not according to this detailed reporting by vice: https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-abolish-the-police-mean https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-... “For the last week, mainstream publications and centrist thinkers have tied themselves in knots trying to explain that when activists say they want to defund the police, they don’t really mean that; “defund the police” is a slogan that actually means “make police departments smaller and more accountable,” they say. But many people who say “defund the police” mean exactly that—defund and abolish police departments, and use that funding to lift up communities.” Claiming it to be a clear cut distinction simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
      - ixacto 5y ago
        The defund the policers are getting me to probably vote R in 2022/2024, even though IMO Trump will never be someone I’d vote for, in which case I’ll not vote at all. Democrats should have immediately distanced themselves from this movement.
      - 5y ago
tolbish 5y ago
Wouldn't you rather the police focus on security rather than try to tacke every societal ill? One doesn't need to be a part of any labeled movement to agree with that.

zepto 5y ago

It isn’t even remotely disingenuous to say that ‘defund the police’ is literally about abolition. It is widely reported on: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-abolish-the-police-mean https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democrats-mean-it-when-they-say-they-want-to-defund-or-abolish-the-police/ar-BB1fCbLU https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democrats-mean-it-when-the...

brundolf 5y ago
I think the movement is not homogenous. "Defunding" can be partial.
- zepto 5y ago
  Indeed - which is why claiming that the movement is only saying only one thing is misleading.

mc32 5y ago

Unfortunately that’s not what the vocal proponents of defund the police mean. When asked they say yes it literally means defund and reduce the police force. It's like saying, here, we'll keep the price of a box of cereal the same (but reduce the mass on the sly).

haswell 5y ago
I get that some vocal proponents mean “defund” in a very literal sense, but isn’t this always the case with these things? There is always a group on the fringe, regardless of political faction, that wants the most extreme version of a policy. The existence of such groups doesn’t mean that serious policy makers are actually on board with that extreme, nor do the majority of folks who support a more nuanced application of the policy (e.g. change how police are funded vs “defund”). So I hear you, and yes, those people exist, but giving too much credence to the extremist position and wielding it as a scary straw man against the movement is also problematic.
- zepto 5y ago
  It’s a position definitely represented by real policy makers, and that actual cities have attempted to implement. It’s not accurate to call it a straw man. The converse of your complaint is true - people pretending the extremes don’t have any power, and using the benign version of the phrase as cover. Who wouldn’t agree with channeling funds to more appropriate professionals to deal with non-criminal situations that the police are currently drawn into? The problem is not with this reasonable sounding policy objective. It’s that there are real policy makers who do mean abolish. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol... The New York Times is not known for publishing ‘extremism’. It publishes mainstream opinions.
- rayiner 5y ago
  Even viewing the situation charitably, the ostensible reformers here jumped behind a slogan that literally sounds like “eliminate police funding.” It’s like getting behind a “shut down immigration” slogan then claiming you really mean to shut down family based immigration in favor of a point system. It’s not just bad messaging. Police reformers got behind an inflammatory and extreme slogan and realized after the fact that they had overplayed their hand and overestimated support for the extreme position.

ALittleLight 5y ago

That comic suggests the police are not supposed to handle things like gang violence or domestic violence? Too bad they didn't label those rocks in the second panel, I'm curious to see who is supposed to take care of gang violence if not the police. "Defund the police" is a broad slogan endorsed by supporters of everything from police reform to police abolitionists. That makes it hard to know what anyone is talking about in terms of defunding the police. When someone says "Well, I think we have to have police" then the defund advocate can just explain what the phrase "really means" (to that specific advocate). To use just a single rock from your comic example - saying "I think we should invest in job placement, education, and drug addiction programs to help mitigate the homeless problem" is really different from saying "Defund the police." For one thing, it lets people know what you are talking about - reducing the burden that homeless people place on police by reducing the number of in-need homeless. Suggesting a specific solution also focuses the conversation on solving problems. Defunding the police is pretty unpopular[1]. The idea is opposed by the majority in all demographics, both major political parties, and supported by only 18% of Americans. My intuition is that solutions to specific sub-problems with policing (e.g. how will you address homelessness) would be much more popular and productive. Plus, you need to have the alternate solutions in place prior to defunding the police. 1- https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-03/usat-ipsos_racial_injustice_topline_030421.pdf https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...