4 ms·

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 vernac

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.
  - Wiseacre 5y ago
    Your argument doesn't make any sense. You fund something when it has too little money. You defund something when it has too much money. If you wanted to abolish or eliminate something you would use those words, not defund.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      I'm talking about the word "defund" in the vernacular. Which, for many people, absolutely does also imply abolish or eliminate. As a thought experiment, I'm going to conjure a slogan: "Defund the Humane Society". What is the first thing that comes to mind? I expect most people would think "you want to get rid of the animal shelter?" And I would reply, "no what I actually want is to re-allocate money from the euthanasia program so that we can have increased adoption rates and make this a no-kill shelter." Putting aside the vernacular implications of "defund", my slogan is totally ineffective at actually capturing what I am trying to accomplish. And, it has the added downside of giving people a terrible and inaccurate first impression.

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.
- Wiseacre 5y ago
  Your argument doesn't make any sense. You fund something when it has too little money. You defund something when it has too much money. If you wanted to abolish or eliminate something you would use those words, not defund.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I'm talking about the word "defund" in the vernacular. Which, for many people, absolutely does also imply abolish or eliminate. As a thought experiment, I'm going to conjure a slogan: "Defund the Humane Society". What is the first thing that comes to mind? I expect most people would think "you want to get rid of the animal shelter?" And I would reply, "no what I actually want is to re-allocate money from the euthanasia program so that we can have increased adoption rates and make this a no-kill shelter." Putting aside the vernacular implications of "defund", my slogan is totally ineffective at actually capturing what I am trying to accomplish. And, it has the added downside of giving people a terrible and inaccurate first impression.