7 ms·

> When people talk about defunding or abolishing the police, they refer to razing systems like this (or parts like this in larger departments) to the ground, re

> When people talk about defunding or abolishing the police, they refer to razing systems like this (or parts like this in larger departments) to the ground, rethinking and rebuilding based on the needs of the community. Some sure. Certainly not all. I don't even think most. If I'm wrong, then the meme itself needs better phrasing.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ryguytilidie 5y ago
So you're dismissing the defund the police movement based on the phrasing and not knowing anything about it? What would be so harmful with learning about the thing you're speaking about with authority before doing so...?
helen___keller 5y ago
> Some sure. Certainly not all. I don't even think most. If I'm wrong, then the meme itself needs better phrasing. The meme lives in the gray space of non-specifism, where every person for or against imposes their preferred meaning If you go to a somewhat authoritative source such as https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/ https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/ then you get > We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive. But what does it mean to have “resources to … survive [and] thrive”? I would argue it implies a rethinking and rebuilding of policing based on the needs of the community, like GP claims. Another leftist might think it’s the anarchical approach. It’s vague, more or less intentionally
- snomad 5y ago
  Its a Motte and Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle
  - helen___keller 5y ago
    Not exactly. Motte and Bailey is a fallacy as an argument, but memes are not arguments. You can think of it as a distributed version of Motte and Bailey: someone out there surely is trying to actually abolish policing, but if you fish the internet for arguments in favor you only get people looking to reform The answer, like to most of these kinds of issues, is to avoid arguing against internet memes. Have a debate with a singular person on an agreed upon position, or don’t debate at all.
  - gknoy 5y ago
    I think you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy : An arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend.. and one much more controversial.... The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Thank you for pointing out this argument fallacy. I've certainly seen it and been unable to articulate what is going on and why it feels like an argument in bad faith, and now I have a name for it.
GordonS 5y ago
I should think that the number of people who want to completely do away with the police is vanishingly small. Actually, it's probably about 3 people. It seems like the right in the USA are being deliberately pedantic about the phrase "defund the police", to make it sound like those on the left are crazy.
- bandushrew 5y ago
  Its a social problem, largely driven by the FPP political system in the US. The left hold up the opinions of the far right/right lunatics and say "see? this is how insane everyone on the right is" The right hold up the opinions of the far left/left lunatics and say "see? this is how insane everyone on the left is" The moderate left and the moderate right have far more in common with each other than they do with the extremes at either end, yet somehow each is convinced that the other is represented most accurately by the extreme edge.
  - vkou 5y ago
    The 'moderate' right and the 'moderate' right are both pretty insane when it comes to the police, because they largely support their current status quo, and their current status quo is insane. Pants-on-head insane. Just because you're a centrist on <an arbitrary political spectrum, that spans a single country's politics> doesn't mean that the things you believe in aren't crazy or horrifying.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I think we get different facts about the characterization of US policing. If you look at extreme cherry-picked examples one way or the other, you tend to end up at the extremes. If you accept that reality is more nuanced and the good and evil police aren’t evenly distributed (and that the trite policies offered up by extremists do much more harm than good a la the current surge in homicides), etc then you’re probably much more likely to be a moderate on the issue.
      - 5y ago
newbie789 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ryguytilidie 5y ago

So you're dismissing the defund the police movement based on the phrasing and not knowing anything about it? What would be so harmful with learning about the thing you're speaking about with authority before doing so...?

helen___keller 5y ago

> Some sure. Certainly not all. I don't even think most. If I'm wrong, then the meme itself needs better phrasing. The meme lives in the gray space of non-specifism, where every person for or against imposes their preferred meaning If you go to a somewhat authoritative source such as https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/ https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/ then you get > We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive, but thrive. But what does it mean to have “resources to … survive [and] thrive”? I would argue it implies a rethinking and rebuilding of policing based on the needs of the community, like GP claims. Another leftist might think it’s the anarchical approach. It’s vague, more or less intentionally

snomad 5y ago
Its a Motte and Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle
- helen___keller 5y ago
  Not exactly. Motte and Bailey is a fallacy as an argument, but memes are not arguments. You can think of it as a distributed version of Motte and Bailey: someone out there surely is trying to actually abolish policing, but if you fish the internet for arguments in favor you only get people looking to reform The answer, like to most of these kinds of issues, is to avoid arguing against internet memes. Have a debate with a singular person on an agreed upon position, or don’t debate at all.
- gknoy 5y ago
  I think you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy : An arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend.. and one much more controversial.... The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Thank you for pointing out this argument fallacy. I've certainly seen it and been unable to articulate what is going on and why it feels like an argument in bad faith, and now I have a name for it.

GordonS 5y ago

I should think that the number of people who want to completely do away with the police is vanishingly small. Actually, it's probably about 3 people. It seems like the right in the USA are being deliberately pedantic about the phrase "defund the police", to make it sound like those on the left are crazy.

bandushrew 5y ago
Its a social problem, largely driven by the FPP political system in the US. The left hold up the opinions of the far right/right lunatics and say "see? this is how insane everyone on the right is" The right hold up the opinions of the far left/left lunatics and say "see? this is how insane everyone on the left is" The moderate left and the moderate right have far more in common with each other than they do with the extremes at either end, yet somehow each is convinced that the other is represented most accurately by the extreme edge.
- vkou 5y ago
  The 'moderate' right and the 'moderate' right are both pretty insane when it comes to the police, because they largely support their current status quo, and their current status quo is insane. Pants-on-head insane. Just because you're a centrist on <an arbitrary political spectrum, that spans a single country's politics> doesn't mean that the things you believe in aren't crazy or horrifying.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I think we get different facts about the characterization of US policing. If you look at extreme cherry-picked examples one way or the other, you tend to end up at the extremes. If you accept that reality is more nuanced and the good and evil police aren’t evenly distributed (and that the trite policies offered up by extremists do much more harm than good a la the current surge in homicides), etc then you’re probably much more likely to be a moderate on the issue.
    - 5y ago

newbie789 5y ago