3 ms·

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 ri

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.
- einherjae 4y ago
  The reason I wrote why I did, was that my understanding of “defund the police” is that it’s not actually intended as abolitionism. If that is the case, then it’s not a suitable slogan at all for reformism.

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.

einherjae 4y ago
The reason I wrote why I did, was that my understanding of “defund the police” is that it’s not actually intended as abolitionism. If that is the case, then it’s not a suitable slogan at all for reformism.