3 ms·

No, abolishing the police means getting rid of the police. You don’t get to redefine words with this sort of Doublespeak. You wanted to capitalize on the thril

No, abolishing the police means getting rid of the police. You don’t get to redefine words with this sort of Doublespeak. You wanted to capitalize on the thrill of saying something as bold as “Abolish the police” and then backpedal when it became convenient to take a more reasonable approach. It’s dishonest and it’s becoming a pattern after “Black Lives Matter” was called out for being similarly problematic. This isn’t limited to the left either. “Read my lips: no new taxes”, “Lock her up”, and “Build the wall” were likewise dishonest.

KarlKemp 5y ago
They might not get to “redefine words” but neither do you get to just change them to fit your point. The slogan used “defund” not ‘abolish”. “Defund” is somewhat ambiguous, indeed. That the initial slogan with “abolish” didn’t catch on actually helps to show that abolishment was not the intended meaning.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  The parent poster used "abolish" which is why I used it. Also, that's the phrase I've most seen in the media. I respect that you may have seen "defund" used more frequently. "Defund" isn't exactly ambiguous either. If you defund a police department, you've abolished it because police officers aren't going to work for free and the police buildings and vehicles will deteriorate from not being maintained. It is not possible to have a police force without funding. It's like if I said "we should fire bullets at JimBob", and then after that happened acting surprised that JimBob died. "Whoa whoa whoa I just said to fire bullets at him, not kill him!" really shouldn't be fooling anyone.
pc86 5y ago
HW absolutely meant "No new taxes" when he said it. That doesn't make it dishonest, but it does illustrate why boxing yourself into dogmatic ideological stances is a bad move from a policy standpoint.
dls2016 5y ago
I have just the slogan for you: "No Political Slogans!"

KarlKemp 5y ago

They might not get to “redefine words” but neither do you get to just change them to fit your point. The slogan used “defund” not ‘abolish”. “Defund” is somewhat ambiguous, indeed. That the initial slogan with “abolish” didn’t catch on actually helps to show that abolishment was not the intended meaning.

jimbob45 5y ago
The parent poster used "abolish" which is why I used it. Also, that's the phrase I've most seen in the media. I respect that you may have seen "defund" used more frequently. "Defund" isn't exactly ambiguous either. If you defund a police department, you've abolished it because police officers aren't going to work for free and the police buildings and vehicles will deteriorate from not being maintained. It is not possible to have a police force without funding. It's like if I said "we should fire bullets at JimBob", and then after that happened acting surprised that JimBob died. "Whoa whoa whoa I just said to fire bullets at him, not kill him!" really shouldn't be fooling anyone.

pc86 5y ago

HW absolutely meant "No new taxes" when he said it. That doesn't make it dishonest, but it does illustrate why boxing yourself into dogmatic ideological stances is a bad move from a policy standpoint.

dls2016 5y ago

I have just the slogan for you: "No Political Slogans!"