7 ms·

This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. Like AntiWork, It

This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. Like AntiWork, It seems to have been started by those who genuinely wanted to abolish the police. But as time went on people joined who instead wanted to reform the police by dramatically cutting back what they were meant to respond to. But the slogan stayed, and was very misleading and puzzling to most people.

Miner49er 5y ago
Defund the police and the similarity was brought up multiple times in the article.
gruez 5y ago
> This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. I have a hard time figuring out whether: 1) all the people who are saying "no we don't really mean defund the police" are just the moderate elements battling it out with the extreme elements (eg. 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...) 2) most of them actually want the police to be abolished, but they're doing a motte and bailey[1] whenever they're confronted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
- mlyle 5y ago
  "Defund" can be a relative term that doesn't necessarily mean to fully remove funding. E.g. we've had decades of hyperbole where relatively small cuts to defense funding are referred to by opponents as "defunding" US troops. We spend a whole lot on policing compared to most other developed nations, and we're not getting terrific outcomes either on civil liberties or crime rates. It might be time to take a different approach where we spend a lot less on direct policing, and redeploy a lot of those resources to fight crime in other ways. The developed countries that spend more or similar amounts tend to do it by spending on more highly trained officers than we do. On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided.
  - panarky 5y ago
    > we've had decades of hyperbole where relatively small cuts to defense funding are referred to by opponents as "defunding" US troops making defense and police funding continue to increase but at a slightly slower rate is referred to by opponents as "defunding"
  - bleachedsleet 5y ago
    > On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided. This statement disturbs me. Please clarify.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      If you spend a huge amount of money on police, and get bad outcomes for both crime rate and negative impacts of policing, there's really two options: - The money is poorly spent, and better (perhaps less) spending would obtain better outcomes - Because of other factors, we're doing approximately as well as we can: if we deployed resources away from the authoritarian, heavy-handed mechanisms, we'd have even more crimes and bad outcomes. I think the former is more likely, but I can't entirely exclude the latter.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      There are a number of socioeconomic factors that are believed to be the underlying influence on violent crime. My own personal summary on this is that people tend to become criminals when they lose hope in having a fair shot at a successful life, or see an opportunity that they don't find morally reprehensible ("well, it's really the bank/insurance money so it's not hurting a person"). So I think this hopelessness is mostly what drove the pandemic crime increase.
  - batshit_beaver 5y ago
    > On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided. I think people both understate how splintered the US society really is, and overstate the importance of this divide. Imagine a country with a HUGE historical and current influx of immigrants that bring tons of different cultures and ideologies into the mix. The country has traditionally been hard to govern, especially at the federal level, precisely because it encourages freedom of thought and expression through both law and immigration policy. Its economic structure further encourages division by being one of the most meritocratic systems on the planet, where material gains for good decisions are quite the norm, but where the divide between the haves and have nots is always growing, and always on display. In a country I describe, why is it any surprise to anyone that criminal behavior will be more common than in a more cohesive environment, therefore necessitating a more strict policing approach? And in what world does it make sense to reduce police powers in such a country without suffering the obvious increase in crime that will follow that? It's not that US is fundamentally broken or fucked up, it's just a very different place compared to the "liberal utopias" of Northern Europe, so often cited by leftist activists in the states.
- Valgrim 5y ago
  I think it was always pretty clear that the movement as a whole advocated redistribution of resources toward less violent and more efficient alternatives to police, like better social programs and mental health resources. Relying on the police to prevent crime is like relying on firefighters to prevent fires or paramedics to prevent injuries. Sure they have a role to play, but logically they should only be the last resort in case everything else goes wrong.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    From my own experience, and the discussions I had with my peers, the specific term "defund" does not imply advocating redistribution. I sense that in the vernacular "defund" means to stop paying for something and the implication is you are getting rid of whatever is no longer being funded. Defund also tends to be used for line-items and programs rather than organizations and departments, which adds to the confusion.
    - kraftman 5y ago
      If I said "the government needs to fund NASA" or "NASA needs funding", you wouldn't assume that they currently have no money.
      - BitwiseFool 5y ago
        But the key difference is that you said "fund NASA", rather than "defund NASA". Fund definitely implies there is not currently enough money, or that a new program is being advocated for. I would likewise think that anyone who wanted to "defund NASA" had the intention of getting rid of the agency, rather than a more nuanced position of "we should stop funding SLS so that we can reallocate the money on high school STEM outreach and climate satellites."
        kraftman 5y ago
        Defund is the opposite of fund. If fund doesn't imply that they had no money at all, defund shouldnt imply removing all their money. If the intention was to get rid of NASA, then the phrase would be "abolish NASA", "dismantle NASA", or some other word that actually has that meaning.
- prepend 5y ago
  I’m thinking the latter as it seems so crazy to use a specific word and then argue against its understood meaning. Why would I want to bother with that confusion when I could just call it “reform police” or whatever. Gaslighting is very mainstream and seems so commonplace in even banal, insubstantial things like debating whether “defund police” means to remove funding from the police or something else.
  - MockObject 5y ago
    Exactly correct. If someone advocates for more funding for social workers and mental health care, they can just say so. That funding doesn't necessarily need to come from police budgets. If someone advocates to "defund Planned Parenthood", they would be disappointed with a mere reduction in funding.
gurleen_s 5y ago
That’s because movements that began on the left are regularly appropriated by neoliberals seeking to crush any radical idea. It’s not a coincidence.
the_snooze 5y ago
>Defund the Police That slogan was straight up political malpractice. If you have to explain your position, then you're already losing. Something like "government accountability" or "serve the people" probably could have gotten wider support than "defund the police."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think the article articulates the counterpoint. Most movements start with radicals. A milder slogan wouldn't have gotten traction with the radicals, who actually do want to abolish the police. If the radicals weren't protesting, the mainstream wouldn't have taken notice and come on board. This leads to a conflict of views within the protesters and ultimately the revision of the slogan definition
- shakes_mcjunkie 5y ago
  You could say literally the same thing about any political slogan. For example, please explain "government accountability" or "serve the people"? That literally could be anything. Another example, "Medicare for All", pretty straight forward, but what does it look like as a policy? https://www.propublica.org/article/medicare-for-all-is-not-medicare-and-not-really-for-all-so-what-does-it-actually-mean https://www.propublica.org/article/medicare-for-all-is-not-m... Or "Make American Great Again" or "Build Back Better". Any slogan can be questioned. IMO, "Defund the Police" is almost the most straightforward political slogan I can think of and if you Google it, near the top result is a website explaining exactly what it means. https://defundthepolice.org/ https://defundthepolice.org/ The problem with a lot of people who were questioning "Defund the Police" in my experience is that they would go to BLM protests but then be much more moderate and not actually interested in what the protests meant or what defunding the police actually means; the slogan wasn't unclear, it was wanting to look like you cared but not actually doing the work to convince yourself or learn more.
  - the_snooze 5y ago
Proven 5y ago
jklinger410 5y ago
Actually defund the police means exactly what it says. The proposal is that police budgets get diverted to mental health and rehabilitation programs. The budget moved to mental health & rehab would be handled under a different agency than the police, which is something that is constantly argued over. Many opponents of defund the police agree with the overall budget reallocation, but they believe the budget should not change agencies. What opponents need to understand about the movement is that police would have less to do, as many emergency calls would be handled by actual professionals. So if they still need their mini tanks, assault weapons, and SWAT gear, they can still make a case based on their newly lightened responsibilities.
- UnpossibleJim 5y ago
  A lot of the mini-tanks, assault weapons and SWAT gear is based on how the police are funded, not necessarily the amount of funding they have. The amount of funding a police department has is determined at the beginning of the fiscal year and by how much was spent by the previous year, including any shortfalls or excesses in budgetary spending. City councils and Mayors/DA's are always looking to trim the police budget (believe it or not), so a lot of the time, the department will take any excess budget they have at the end of the year and spend it on military auction items (a whole other mess), in order to keep their budget and show that they've been able to stretch their budget as far as they can and get the most value for their dollar (I read a very good article about it like 2 years ago, or so and can't find it). But departments do this so they don't lose their future budgets, "just in case" they need to hire future officers, need more "real" equipment, etc. etc. This has lead to the increase in militarization of the police and the militarization of the tactics of the police as military personnel are already familiar with the equipment. There has been no same said impetus to increase nonviolent intervention tactics on an ever increasingly divisive nation, who's "news" cycle and social networks actively work to stoke division and tension as it feeds interaction, which provides more eyes on advertisement (sorry, I went down a rabbithole in the end, there). It would be better, well it would be a start, to have quarterly budget reviews and performance reviews tied to the needs of the community and training. But, we all know that isn't how politics works =(
- bleachedsleet 5y ago
honkdaddy 5y ago
Here in Canada, many of those same voices are now begging the Ottawa police to take on a _more_ violent and confrontational approach in response to the ongoing protest. The hypocrisy is absolutely surreal to me.
- shakes_mcjunkie 5y ago
  Is it really surprising that all kinds of different people are a part of a political movement? You would find this same kind of diversity of thought in any group of people.
  - honkdaddy 5y ago
    No that's definitely true, I should have been more specific. In my case, I was referring to some past acquaintances who are very vocal about their views on social media. Specifically, the perspective I'm bothered by, is that of being pro-police intervention when it's for a cause you don't support, but calling to defund the police when they're disrupting a protest you _do_ support.
    - shakes_mcjunkie 5y ago
      Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  I'm sure you could find some folks in the world who would support that for any protest, but most just want the Ottawan ones to stop honking, stop blocking, stop whining, achieve their political ends via democratic means, vs. by force, and suck it up when they're unable to convince enough people to subscribe to their newsletter.
fullshark 5y ago
I think in both of these cases, and in the case of the Cap Hill Autonomous Zone (No we mean Cap Hill Occupied Protest actually!) the shift in rhetoric is not so much from the new people joining, but from the movement getting a reality check and embarrassing itself, then scaling back its ambitions. Edit: The analogue on the right (but not as clean I guess) would be the attempt to reframe the Jan 6 protests after that utter "embarrassment." They wanted to overturn the election but now the right is spinning hard to reframe the rhetoric. Basically your radicals work hard building a groundswell and excitement around some idea, eventually embarrass themselves, and you have to do damage control. That's modern day national politics.
jimmaswell 5y ago
At face value, many police departments do seem overfunded. In many small towns you'll see too many patrol cars for the area, new patrol cars too often, unnecessary improvements to the department, etc. while other areas of the budget languish because it's politically unpopular to go against the police department and people fear retaliation for advocating against them.
smus 5y ago
>This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. What? It always meant lower police funding. If it meant abolish the police, the slogan would have been abolish the police
- fullshark 5y ago
  I think if you asked 100 people what it meant at its heyday maybe 70-80 would say "abolish the police." Connotation of words and all that. Just for humor's sake, google dictionary definition of defund is "prevent from continuing to receive funds" thus kill/abolish.
  - hannasanarion 5y ago
    And those same people would happily call for legislation to defund sanctuary cities, defund education, defund planned parenthood, defund medicaid, with the full understanding that the proposals aren't intended to wipe those things from the face of the earth.
    - fullshark 5y ago
      I mean, do you want to build a winning coalition or do you want to keep sending out confusing political messages and complain amongst yourselves about how the game just isn't fair?
    - prepend 5y ago
      I disagree as the “defund planned parenthood” want to kill the whole org. I mean, that’s why it’s a dangerous proposal as planned parenthood performs many positive functions. So defunding them would harm more than just the part people dislike.
    - yongjik 5y ago
      Maybe, but even these people have the basic sense to not make "defund education" their foremost slogan.
- 5y ago
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
Yeah, this word "sanewashing" as popularized by the article -- while I have mixed feelings about portmanteaus -- is going to be really useful. It's a word I didn't know I needed until I saw it.
neutronicus 5y ago
I certainly had acquaintances who wanted to abolish the police, and were very upset to hear people claiming the slogan meant anything else.
patch_cable 5y ago
This, except in my circles I heard “police abolitionist” followed by “it doesn’t really mean abolishing the police…”

Miner49er 5y ago

Defund the police and the similarity was brought up multiple times in the article.

gruez 5y ago

> This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. I have a hard time figuring out whether: 1) all the people who are saying "no we don't really mean defund the police" are just the moderate elements battling it out with the extreme elements (eg. 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...) 2) most of them actually want the police to be abolished, but they're doing a motte and bailey[1] whenever they're confronted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

mlyle 5y ago
"Defund" can be a relative term that doesn't necessarily mean to fully remove funding. E.g. we've had decades of hyperbole where relatively small cuts to defense funding are referred to by opponents as "defunding" US troops. We spend a whole lot on policing compared to most other developed nations, and we're not getting terrific outcomes either on civil liberties or crime rates. It might be time to take a different approach where we spend a lot less on direct policing, and redeploy a lot of those resources to fight crime in other ways. The developed countries that spend more or similar amounts tend to do it by spending on more highly trained officers than we do. On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided.
- panarky 5y ago
  > we've had decades of hyperbole where relatively small cuts to defense funding are referred to by opponents as "defunding" US troops making defense and police funding continue to increase but at a slightly slower rate is referred to by opponents as "defunding"
- bleachedsleet 5y ago
  > On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided. This statement disturbs me. Please clarify.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    If you spend a huge amount of money on police, and get bad outcomes for both crime rate and negative impacts of policing, there's really two options: - The money is poorly spent, and better (perhaps less) spending would obtain better outcomes - Because of other factors, we're doing approximately as well as we can: if we deployed resources away from the authoritarian, heavy-handed mechanisms, we'd have even more crimes and bad outcomes. I think the former is more likely, but I can't entirely exclude the latter.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    There are a number of socioeconomic factors that are believed to be the underlying influence on violent crime. My own personal summary on this is that people tend to become criminals when they lose hope in having a fair shot at a successful life, or see an opportunity that they don't find morally reprehensible ("well, it's really the bank/insurance money so it's not hurting a person"). So I think this hopelessness is mostly what drove the pandemic crime increase.
- batshit_beaver 5y ago
  > On the other hand, maybe we're just so socioculturally fucked that it requires massive authoritarian investment to keep a crummy level of peace. I'm undecided. I think people both understate how splintered the US society really is, and overstate the importance of this divide. Imagine a country with a HUGE historical and current influx of immigrants that bring tons of different cultures and ideologies into the mix. The country has traditionally been hard to govern, especially at the federal level, precisely because it encourages freedom of thought and expression through both law and immigration policy. Its economic structure further encourages division by being one of the most meritocratic systems on the planet, where material gains for good decisions are quite the norm, but where the divide between the haves and have nots is always growing, and always on display. In a country I describe, why is it any surprise to anyone that criminal behavior will be more common than in a more cohesive environment, therefore necessitating a more strict policing approach? And in what world does it make sense to reduce police powers in such a country without suffering the obvious increase in crime that will follow that? It's not that US is fundamentally broken or fucked up, it's just a very different place compared to the "liberal utopias" of Northern Europe, so often cited by leftist activists in the states.
Valgrim 5y ago
I think it was always pretty clear that the movement as a whole advocated redistribution of resources toward less violent and more efficient alternatives to police, like better social programs and mental health resources. Relying on the police to prevent crime is like relying on firefighters to prevent fires or paramedics to prevent injuries. Sure they have a role to play, but logically they should only be the last resort in case everything else goes wrong.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  From my own experience, and the discussions I had with my peers, the specific term "defund" does not imply advocating redistribution. I sense that in the vernacular "defund" means to stop paying for something and the implication is you are getting rid of whatever is no longer being funded. Defund also tends to be used for line-items and programs rather than organizations and departments, which adds to the confusion.
  - kraftman 5y ago
    If I said "the government needs to fund NASA" or "NASA needs funding", you wouldn't assume that they currently have no money.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      But the key difference is that you said "fund NASA", rather than "defund NASA". Fund definitely implies there is not currently enough money, or that a new program is being advocated for. I would likewise think that anyone who wanted to "defund NASA" had the intention of getting rid of the agency, rather than a more nuanced position of "we should stop funding SLS so that we can reallocate the money on high school STEM outreach and climate satellites."
      - kraftman 5y ago
        Defund is the opposite of fund. If fund doesn't imply that they had no money at all, defund shouldnt imply removing all their money. If the intention was to get rid of NASA, then the phrase would be "abolish NASA", "dismantle NASA", or some other word that actually has that meaning.
prepend 5y ago
I’m thinking the latter as it seems so crazy to use a specific word and then argue against its understood meaning. Why would I want to bother with that confusion when I could just call it “reform police” or whatever. Gaslighting is very mainstream and seems so commonplace in even banal, insubstantial things like debating whether “defund police” means to remove funding from the police or something else.
- MockObject 5y ago
  Exactly correct. If someone advocates for more funding for social workers and mental health care, they can just say so. That funding doesn't necessarily need to come from police budgets. If someone advocates to "defund Planned Parenthood", they would be disappointed with a mere reduction in funding.

gurleen_s 5y ago

That’s because movements that began on the left are regularly appropriated by neoliberals seeking to crush any radical idea. It’s not a coincidence.

the_snooze 5y ago

>Defund the Police That slogan was straight up political malpractice. If you have to explain your position, then you're already losing. Something like "government accountability" or "serve the people" probably could have gotten wider support than "defund the police."

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I think the article articulates the counterpoint. Most movements start with radicals. A milder slogan wouldn't have gotten traction with the radicals, who actually do want to abolish the police. If the radicals weren't protesting, the mainstream wouldn't have taken notice and come on board. This leads to a conflict of views within the protesters and ultimately the revision of the slogan definition
shakes_mcjunkie 5y ago
You could say literally the same thing about any political slogan. For example, please explain "government accountability" or "serve the people"? That literally could be anything. Another example, "Medicare for All", pretty straight forward, but what does it look like as a policy? https://www.propublica.org/article/medicare-for-all-is-not-medicare-and-not-really-for-all-so-what-does-it-actually-mean https://www.propublica.org/article/medicare-for-all-is-not-m... Or "Make American Great Again" or "Build Back Better". Any slogan can be questioned. IMO, "Defund the Police" is almost the most straightforward political slogan I can think of and if you Google it, near the top result is a website explaining exactly what it means. https://defundthepolice.org/ https://defundthepolice.org/ The problem with a lot of people who were questioning "Defund the Police" in my experience is that they would go to BLM protests but then be much more moderate and not actually interested in what the protests meant or what defunding the police actually means; the slogan wasn't unclear, it was wanting to look like you cared but not actually doing the work to convince yourself or learn more.
- the_snooze 5y ago

Proven 5y ago

jklinger410 5y ago

Actually defund the police means exactly what it says. The proposal is that police budgets get diverted to mental health and rehabilitation programs. The budget moved to mental health & rehab would be handled under a different agency than the police, which is something that is constantly argued over. Many opponents of defund the police agree with the overall budget reallocation, but they believe the budget should not change agencies. What opponents need to understand about the movement is that police would have less to do, as many emergency calls would be handled by actual professionals. So if they still need their mini tanks, assault weapons, and SWAT gear, they can still make a case based on their newly lightened responsibilities.

UnpossibleJim 5y ago
A lot of the mini-tanks, assault weapons and SWAT gear is based on how the police are funded, not necessarily the amount of funding they have. The amount of funding a police department has is determined at the beginning of the fiscal year and by how much was spent by the previous year, including any shortfalls or excesses in budgetary spending. City councils and Mayors/DA's are always looking to trim the police budget (believe it or not), so a lot of the time, the department will take any excess budget they have at the end of the year and spend it on military auction items (a whole other mess), in order to keep their budget and show that they've been able to stretch their budget as far as they can and get the most value for their dollar (I read a very good article about it like 2 years ago, or so and can't find it). But departments do this so they don't lose their future budgets, "just in case" they need to hire future officers, need more "real" equipment, etc. etc. This has lead to the increase in militarization of the police and the militarization of the tactics of the police as military personnel are already familiar with the equipment. There has been no same said impetus to increase nonviolent intervention tactics on an ever increasingly divisive nation, who's "news" cycle and social networks actively work to stoke division and tension as it feeds interaction, which provides more eyes on advertisement (sorry, I went down a rabbithole in the end, there). It would be better, well it would be a start, to have quarterly budget reviews and performance reviews tied to the needs of the community and training. But, we all know that isn't how politics works =(
bleachedsleet 5y ago

honkdaddy 5y ago

Here in Canada, many of those same voices are now begging the Ottawa police to take on a _more_ violent and confrontational approach in response to the ongoing protest. The hypocrisy is absolutely surreal to me.

shakes_mcjunkie 5y ago
Is it really surprising that all kinds of different people are a part of a political movement? You would find this same kind of diversity of thought in any group of people.
- honkdaddy 5y ago
  No that's definitely true, I should have been more specific. In my case, I was referring to some past acquaintances who are very vocal about their views on social media. Specifically, the perspective I'm bothered by, is that of being pro-police intervention when it's for a cause you don't support, but calling to defund the police when they're disrupting a protest you _do_ support.
  - shakes_mcjunkie 5y ago
    Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.
ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
I'm sure you could find some folks in the world who would support that for any protest, but most just want the Ottawan ones to stop honking, stop blocking, stop whining, achieve their political ends via democratic means, vs. by force, and suck it up when they're unable to convince enough people to subscribe to their newsletter.

fullshark 5y ago

I think in both of these cases, and in the case of the Cap Hill Autonomous Zone (No we mean Cap Hill Occupied Protest actually!) the shift in rhetoric is not so much from the new people joining, but from the movement getting a reality check and embarrassing itself, then scaling back its ambitions. Edit: The analogue on the right (but not as clean I guess) would be the attempt to reframe the Jan 6 protests after that utter "embarrassment." They wanted to overturn the election but now the right is spinning hard to reframe the rhetoric. Basically your radicals work hard building a groundswell and excitement around some idea, eventually embarrass themselves, and you have to do damage control. That's modern day national politics.

jimmaswell 5y ago

At face value, many police departments do seem overfunded. In many small towns you'll see too many patrol cars for the area, new patrol cars too often, unnecessary improvements to the department, etc. while other areas of the budget languish because it's politically unpopular to go against the police department and people fear retaliation for advocating against them.

smus 5y ago

>This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. What? It always meant lower police funding. If it meant abolish the police, the slogan would have been abolish the police

fullshark 5y ago
I think if you asked 100 people what it meant at its heyday maybe 70-80 would say "abolish the police." Connotation of words and all that. Just for humor's sake, google dictionary definition of defund is "prevent from continuing to receive funds" thus kill/abolish.
- hannasanarion 5y ago
  And those same people would happily call for legislation to defund sanctuary cities, defund education, defund planned parenthood, defund medicaid, with the full understanding that the proposals aren't intended to wipe those things from the face of the earth.
  - fullshark 5y ago
    I mean, do you want to build a winning coalition or do you want to keep sending out confusing political messages and complain amongst yourselves about how the game just isn't fair?
  - prepend 5y ago
    I disagree as the “defund planned parenthood” want to kill the whole org. I mean, that’s why it’s a dangerous proposal as planned parenthood performs many positive functions. So defunding them would harm more than just the part people dislike.
  - yongjik 5y ago
    Maybe, but even these people have the basic sense to not make "defund education" their foremost slogan.
5y ago

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago

Yeah, this word "sanewashing" as popularized by the article -- while I have mixed feelings about portmanteaus -- is going to be really useful. It's a word I didn't know I needed until I saw it.

neutronicus 5y ago

I certainly had acquaintances who wanted to abolish the police, and were very upset to hear people claiming the slogan meant anything else.

patch_cable 5y ago

This, except in my circles I heard “police abolitionist” followed by “it doesn’t really mean abolishing the police…”