4 ms·

If I may play devil's public relation for a second, >Even among the far-left, the idea of actually defunding police is essentially offered only by a fraction o

If I may play devil's public relation for a second, >Even among the far-left, the idea of actually defunding police is essentially offered only by a fraction of pseudo-revolutionaries. My twitter feed paints a different picture, I have a swath of people who would interpret the "defund the police" slogan as: "funding mental health, local services, and so on, through cuts to the police budget, military-style equipment, and such", and much less of the "abolish the police" anarchistic far-left sentiment you've perceived. Their movement seems to have a hard time distancing themselves from their more extreme members, and that is a plentiful source of people talking past each other, which does little to elevate the level of debate. Love.

danShumway 5y ago
> My twitter feed paints a different picture To put this into perspective: The most recent study I've seen suggests that roughly 90% of tweets are posted by 10% of its users. Only about 20% of the American population is on Twitter in the first place, and that demographic is heavily skewed towards younger generations. Assuming those numbers are correct, 90% of Twitter's content is coming from 2% of the American population, with a heavy skew towards Left positions. To contrast, the most recent survey of "defund the police" I can find online suggests that less than 18% of the population supports defunding the police (~30% of Democrats). And the percentage of that group that interprets "defund the police" in the literal sense of slashing police budgets instead of as a cultural/political signal is probably even lower. People really don't realize how little Twitter represents reality. Part of this is the media's fault, part of it is the culture, part of it is... I'm not sure. But it's a really huge mistake to look at Twitter and think that it's a representative slice of mainstream opinion; if that was true then Warren would be president right now.
- loves_mangoes 5y ago
  >The most recent study I've seen suggests that roughly 90% of tweets are posted by 10% of its users That seems in the right order of magnitude, for social media and web forums in general. >Only about 20% of the American population is on Twitter in the first place, and that demographic is heavily skewed towards younger generations So, I'll grant you that. My point really is about the interpretation of "defund the police" among people who subscribe to the idea, more than it is about the popularity of the movement. >To contrast, the most recent survey of "defund the police" I can find online suggests that less than 18% of the population supports defunding the police (~30% of Democrats). And the percentage of that group that interprets "defund the police" in the literal sense of slashing police budgets is probably even lower. Right, but wouldn't that stem precisely from the unclear communication problem I'm trying to highlight? If "defund the police" is only interpreted as "slashing police budgets", then it makes sense that the idea would poll poorly, especially to non-Twitter users. Worded like this, the idea seems to target people who dislike the police more than people who like social services. So the more important point, to me, is whether the public understanding of what the pollsters are asking matches how the movement wants to define itself. Otherwise that would be a quite misleading and unhelpful misrepresentation of the idea, wouldn't it? (Disclaimer: Hypothetically, I weakly support the idea, though I'm not a vocal supporter. I may have some biais.)
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > So the more important point, to me, is whether the public understanding of what the pollsters are asking matches how the movement wants to define itself. That's a good point that's worth making. And it's important to note that even if you go all the way to the police abolition movement, very few of those people aren't also talking about replacing police officers with extensive social services. So I think you're right-on with the idea that the movement is often characterized poorly. But is it unpopular just because it's a communication problem? Maybe. In the sense that if you figured out the right way to present any policy idea it might become popular, I guess. > wouldn't that stem precisely from the unclear communication problem I'm trying to highlight? I don't know. I don't personally think the biggest reason defunding the police is unpopular is that a vocal minority is corrupting the phrase and giving people the wrong impression. I think that minority gets blamed for a lot of stuff, but it doesn't seem to me that the general public is really engaged with the conversation that much to begin with, and they don't really have much information about it at all, if they even care enough to look for it. And that a big portion of the public might reject the concept even if they understood it well, because they're fundamentally more pro-police than people on Twitter realize. When I brought up "defund the police" as a cultural signal, what I mean is that as a mainstream topic of debate the phrase may be entirely separate and orthogonal to anything that even far-Left activists are actually saying. I'm not entirely convinced the movement's problem is messaging, because I'm not entirely convinced that most mainstream Democrats/Republicans are even on Twitter to hear the movement's message in the first place. When I hear 18% of Democrats support the idea, I wonder how many of them support it purely in the sense of them saying, "I'm a progressive." Maybe part of them are interpreting it as slashing police budgets, some of them are interpreting it as redistributing resources, but I think that some of them just aren't interpreting it, the phrase is just something they think that progressives like. I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think it's a little over-simplistic to say that miscommunication is the biggest reason why the idea doesn't have traction. Here's a weird fact: support for BLM as a movement among mainstream Democrats fell once protests calmed down, completely contrary to the narrative/fear that people had that looters would hurt support and that a calmer environment would be better for mainstream acceptance. To me, that suggests that messaging alone paints an incomplete picture of what's happening.

danShumway 5y ago

> My twitter feed paints a different picture To put this into perspective: The most recent study I've seen suggests that roughly 90% of tweets are posted by 10% of its users. Only about 20% of the American population is on Twitter in the first place, and that demographic is heavily skewed towards younger generations. Assuming those numbers are correct, 90% of Twitter's content is coming from 2% of the American population, with a heavy skew towards Left positions. To contrast, the most recent survey of "defund the police" I can find online suggests that less than 18% of the population supports defunding the police (~30% of Democrats). And the percentage of that group that interprets "defund the police" in the literal sense of slashing police budgets instead of as a cultural/political signal is probably even lower. People really don't realize how little Twitter represents reality. Part of this is the media's fault, part of it is the culture, part of it is... I'm not sure. But it's a really huge mistake to look at Twitter and think that it's a representative slice of mainstream opinion; if that was true then Warren would be president right now.

loves_mangoes 5y ago
>The most recent study I've seen suggests that roughly 90% of tweets are posted by 10% of its users That seems in the right order of magnitude, for social media and web forums in general. >Only about 20% of the American population is on Twitter in the first place, and that demographic is heavily skewed towards younger generations So, I'll grant you that. My point really is about the interpretation of "defund the police" among people who subscribe to the idea, more than it is about the popularity of the movement. >To contrast, the most recent survey of "defund the police" I can find online suggests that less than 18% of the population supports defunding the police (~30% of Democrats). And the percentage of that group that interprets "defund the police" in the literal sense of slashing police budgets is probably even lower. Right, but wouldn't that stem precisely from the unclear communication problem I'm trying to highlight? If "defund the police" is only interpreted as "slashing police budgets", then it makes sense that the idea would poll poorly, especially to non-Twitter users. Worded like this, the idea seems to target people who dislike the police more than people who like social services. So the more important point, to me, is whether the public understanding of what the pollsters are asking matches how the movement wants to define itself. Otherwise that would be a quite misleading and unhelpful misrepresentation of the idea, wouldn't it? (Disclaimer: Hypothetically, I weakly support the idea, though I'm not a vocal supporter. I may have some biais.)
- danShumway 5y ago
  > So the more important point, to me, is whether the public understanding of what the pollsters are asking matches how the movement wants to define itself. That's a good point that's worth making. And it's important to note that even if you go all the way to the police abolition movement, very few of those people aren't also talking about replacing police officers with extensive social services. So I think you're right-on with the idea that the movement is often characterized poorly. But is it unpopular just because it's a communication problem? Maybe. In the sense that if you figured out the right way to present any policy idea it might become popular, I guess. > wouldn't that stem precisely from the unclear communication problem I'm trying to highlight? I don't know. I don't personally think the biggest reason defunding the police is unpopular is that a vocal minority is corrupting the phrase and giving people the wrong impression. I think that minority gets blamed for a lot of stuff, but it doesn't seem to me that the general public is really engaged with the conversation that much to begin with, and they don't really have much information about it at all, if they even care enough to look for it. And that a big portion of the public might reject the concept even if they understood it well, because they're fundamentally more pro-police than people on Twitter realize. When I brought up "defund the police" as a cultural signal, what I mean is that as a mainstream topic of debate the phrase may be entirely separate and orthogonal to anything that even far-Left activists are actually saying. I'm not entirely convinced the movement's problem is messaging, because I'm not entirely convinced that most mainstream Democrats/Republicans are even on Twitter to hear the movement's message in the first place. When I hear 18% of Democrats support the idea, I wonder how many of them support it purely in the sense of them saying, "I'm a progressive." Maybe part of them are interpreting it as slashing police budgets, some of them are interpreting it as redistributing resources, but I think that some of them just aren't interpreting it, the phrase is just something they think that progressives like. I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think it's a little over-simplistic to say that miscommunication is the biggest reason why the idea doesn't have traction. Here's a weird fact: support for BLM as a movement among mainstream Democrats fell once protests calmed down, completely contrary to the narrative/fear that people had that looters would hurt support and that a calmer environment would be better for mainstream acceptance. To me, that suggests that messaging alone paints an incomplete picture of what's happening.