> ambiguous But it's not ambiguous. It has a literal meaning, which is zero funding for police. That the activists using it are trying to act smart with Humpty

> ambiguous But it's not ambiguous. It has a literal meaning, which is zero funding for police. That the activists using it are trying to act smart with Humpty Dumpty wordplay [1] doesn't change its well-established meaning. Especially when related activists get NY Times opinion columns doubling down on that meaning [2]. See how many other movements you can think of, that can make such outrageous claims, only for the journalist class to massage their words and bend the rules of language past their breaking point, to make the movement palatable to the masses. [1] ’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ [2] Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police - 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...