4 ms·

Even that seems to suggest that 8 to abolition wishes to start by defunding police (but not abolishing! Those are clearly different: defunding is a step to abol

Even that seems to suggest that 8 to abolition wishes to start by defunding police (but not abolishing! Those are clearly different: defunding is a step to abolishing, but 0 police funding would pretty clearly be abolished), perhaps with a long-term aim to reduce that funding to zero. But the way they use "defund" appears to mean decrease, not remove entirely, at least not yet.

zepto 5y ago
Defunding as a step to abolishing, means abolishing the police is the goal. Saying ‘at least not yet” doesn’t change the documented the fact that people use defund the police to mean abolish the police. 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...
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  I don't know how to tell you this any more clearly, but if "defunding the police is a step to abolishing the police" then "defunding the police" and "abolishing the police" must be distinct concepts. If they meant the same thing, you wouldn't need to do one first.
  - zepto 5y ago
    That’s like saying ‘putting toothpaste on your toothbrush’ and ‘brushing your teeth’ are two distinct concepts. Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth. In just the same way, it is well documented that many people who say ‘defund the police’ mean completely defund them as a step towards abolishing them. There are people who are literally saying ‘when we say defund’ we mean abolish. We’re not talking about whether in some abstract world a semantic distinction is possible. We’re talking about how activists are using a political slogan. It’s hard to imagine you are really claiming that nobody who says ‘defund the police’ means to abolish the police.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > It’s hard to imagine you are really claiming that nobody who says ‘defund the police’ means to abolish the police. You're playing semantic games with "means" here, you're using it as a verb, "intends to" and not "is a synonym for", as we have been previously in the conversation. Breaking it down, people who intend to abolish the police almost by definition also support defunding it. Because that's a step towards abolishment. So you're correct, I'm not claiming that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ intends to abolish the police" I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people. > Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth. This would be more compelling if there were people who felt that just putting toothpaste on the brush was the goal. But it isn't, because we both agree that there are some people who's only goal is to (partially) defund the police. I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people. Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s we’ll documented. However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people. Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s we’ll documented. However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people. > I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith. What part are you saying is not good faith?
      - zepto 5y ago
        > You're playing semantic games … Am I? > I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people. Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s well documented, and weird to deny. However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people. > I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith. What claim are you saying is not made in good faith?

zepto 5y ago

Defunding as a step to abolishing, means abolishing the police is the goal. Saying ‘at least not yet” doesn’t change the documented the fact that people use defund the police to mean abolish the police. 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...

joshuamorton 5y ago
I don't know how to tell you this any more clearly, but if "defunding the police is a step to abolishing the police" then "defunding the police" and "abolishing the police" must be distinct concepts. If they meant the same thing, you wouldn't need to do one first.
- zepto 5y ago
  That’s like saying ‘putting toothpaste on your toothbrush’ and ‘brushing your teeth’ are two distinct concepts. Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth. In just the same way, it is well documented that many people who say ‘defund the police’ mean completely defund them as a step towards abolishing them. There are people who are literally saying ‘when we say defund’ we mean abolish. We’re not talking about whether in some abstract world a semantic distinction is possible. We’re talking about how activists are using a political slogan. It’s hard to imagine you are really claiming that nobody who says ‘defund the police’ means to abolish the police.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > It’s hard to imagine you are really claiming that nobody who says ‘defund the police’ means to abolish the police. You're playing semantic games with "means" here, you're using it as a verb, "intends to" and not "is a synonym for", as we have been previously in the conversation. Breaking it down, people who intend to abolish the police almost by definition also support defunding it. Because that's a step towards abolishment. So you're correct, I'm not claiming that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ intends to abolish the police" I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people. > Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth. This would be more compelling if there were people who felt that just putting toothpaste on the brush was the goal. But it isn't, because we both agree that there are some people who's only goal is to (partially) defund the police. I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people. Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s we’ll documented. However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people. Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s we’ll documented. However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people. > I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith. What part are you saying is not good faith?
    - zepto 5y ago
      > You're playing semantic games … Am I? > I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people. Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s well documented, and weird to deny. However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people. > I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith. What claim are you saying is not made in good faith?