4 ms·

That's putting lots of words in my mouth. I agree that police reform is desperately needed, but people saying we don't need police are sabotaging their own argu

by vlunkr 4y ago

That's putting lots of words in my mouth. I agree that police reform is desperately needed, but people saying we don't need police are sabotaging their own argument. If they had any nuance at all people might actually listen to them.

maxbond 4y ago
Well forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, but "I would have listened to your argument if you phrased it differently, you just aren't expressing yourself well" is something people often say when they're being dismissive, and I don't believe significantly more people would be receptive to "defund the police" if it has been phrased a little differently. The requests to water down the rhetoric would simply continue until it was diluted down to, "we should do something nonspecific about this problem which may exist."
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  >>I don't believe significantly more people would be receptive to "defund the police" if it has been phrased a little differently. FWIW, anecdata, per my other comment [1]: I and large majority of my friends & family (Canadian lower-case-liberals by and large) all fall into that category. It took us a LOOOOONG time (I mean weeks and months) to give the platform and movement enough benefit of doubt to investigate underlying proposals (and then largely agree with them), after having immediate and strong negative reaction to "defund the police". And most people will not give it benefit of doubt. I literally to this day have conversations with acquaintances of the sort: "No, they're not actually advocating anarchy and everybody fend for themselves! No, I'm serious! Yes, I know that's what the term implies. Hear me out, this is what I think they're saying..." It's a horrible horrible term that does horrible horrible disservice to the intent. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927430
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Most people won't give you the benefit of the doubt anyway. If you only express ideas that are agreeable, you won't be expressing much at all. If the movement hadn't existed, you wouldn't have had those conversations in the first place. You giving it the benefit of the doubt, and reaching people who were just shy of doing so, _is_ the rhetoric being effective.
    - einherjae 4y ago
      Wouldnt «Safer Police!» or «Demiliarize the police» be better ways to start a conversation thats effective towards the end goal that’s wanted? There’s being right, and there’s being effective (to steal a quote from Obama). The current phrasing is worse at turning public opinion than some of the more us/them-rhetoric that comes from I.e. vegans in that regard. Sure eating lots of meat is bad, and animals should probably be treated better, but screaming “meat is murder” won’t actually make any carnivores drop a single steak of their menu, whereas measures that don’t immediately make the respondent feel attacked might. Yes, “defund the police” will turn heads, but it also immediately leads to being written off as fringe madness. A better slogan should be possible, that actually contains the message of demilitarization.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        Those are good slogans, but they represent different, parallel ideas. This is what I'm getting at; in changing the language, you change the idea, and an abolitionist agenda becomes a reformist one. If you want to advocate for reform, then that's great, that makes sense. But telling people who are advocating abolition, "you're doing it wrong because you aren't doing it my way or appealing to my sensibilities," is patronizing. And it won't be long until someone says, "Safer Police alienates law enforcement, we should call it 'Better Policing', that way we're sure to be taken seriously," and after a few rounds of this you're left with nothing. It's a losing game. Society at large will take you seriously when they can't pretend otherwise anymore, because you have repeatedly demonstrated the veracity of your views, often for decades. There is no end to the excuses people can come up with to dismiss you if that is what they want to do. People either won't change their minds, will change their own mind, or will have some experience that shakes up their world view. The rhetoric you use almost doesn't matter; you can't change someone's mind _for them_, no matter what you say. The most you can do is share your ideas, giving them the opportunity to change their mind, if they so choose. What matters is that you're a part of the conversation, and that what you're demanding is just. People will come around. The ones who don't will get old and die. "Safer Police" would've been radical 20 years ago. Many people's world views were shaken up by repeated videos of police misconduct. "Defund the Police" is radical currently; in 10, 20 years, it might well be mainstream.

by vlunkr 4y ago

maxbond 4y ago

Well forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, but "I would have listened to your argument if you phrased it differently, you just aren't expressing yourself well" is something people often say when they're being dismissive, and I don't believe significantly more people would be receptive to "defund the police" if it has been phrased a little differently. The requests to water down the rhetoric would simply continue until it was diluted down to, "we should do something nonspecific about this problem which may exist."

NikolaNovak 4y ago
>>I don't believe significantly more people would be receptive to "defund the police" if it has been phrased a little differently. FWIW, anecdata, per my other comment [1]: I and large majority of my friends & family (Canadian lower-case-liberals by and large) all fall into that category. It took us a LOOOOONG time (I mean weeks and months) to give the platform and movement enough benefit of doubt to investigate underlying proposals (and then largely agree with them), after having immediate and strong negative reaction to "defund the police". And most people will not give it benefit of doubt. I literally to this day have conversations with acquaintances of the sort: "No, they're not actually advocating anarchy and everybody fend for themselves! No, I'm serious! Yes, I know that's what the term implies. Hear me out, this is what I think they're saying..." It's a horrible horrible term that does horrible horrible disservice to the intent. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927430
- maxbond 4y ago
  Most people won't give you the benefit of the doubt anyway. If you only express ideas that are agreeable, you won't be expressing much at all. If the movement hadn't existed, you wouldn't have had those conversations in the first place. You giving it the benefit of the doubt, and reaching people who were just shy of doing so, _is_ the rhetoric being effective.
  - einherjae 4y ago
    Wouldnt «Safer Police!» or «Demiliarize the police» be better ways to start a conversation thats effective towards the end goal that’s wanted? There’s being right, and there’s being effective (to steal a quote from Obama). The current phrasing is worse at turning public opinion than some of the more us/them-rhetoric that comes from I.e. vegans in that regard. Sure eating lots of meat is bad, and animals should probably be treated better, but screaming “meat is murder” won’t actually make any carnivores drop a single steak of their menu, whereas measures that don’t immediately make the respondent feel attacked might. Yes, “defund the police” will turn heads, but it also immediately leads to being written off as fringe madness. A better slogan should be possible, that actually contains the message of demilitarization.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      Those are good slogans, but they represent different, parallel ideas. This is what I'm getting at; in changing the language, you change the idea, and an abolitionist agenda becomes a reformist one. If you want to advocate for reform, then that's great, that makes sense. But telling people who are advocating abolition, "you're doing it wrong because you aren't doing it my way or appealing to my sensibilities," is patronizing. And it won't be long until someone says, "Safer Police alienates law enforcement, we should call it 'Better Policing', that way we're sure to be taken seriously," and after a few rounds of this you're left with nothing. It's a losing game. Society at large will take you seriously when they can't pretend otherwise anymore, because you have repeatedly demonstrated the veracity of your views, often for decades. There is no end to the excuses people can come up with to dismiss you if that is what they want to do. People either won't change their minds, will change their own mind, or will have some experience that shakes up their world view. The rhetoric you use almost doesn't matter; you can't change someone's mind _for them_, no matter what you say. The most you can do is share your ideas, giving them the opportunity to change their mind, if they so choose. What matters is that you're a part of the conversation, and that what you're demanding is just. People will come around. The ones who don't will get old and die. "Safer Police" would've been radical 20 years ago. Many people's world views were shaken up by repeated videos of police misconduct. "Defund the Police" is radical currently; in 10, 20 years, it might well be mainstream.