3 ms·

> A survey from YouGov found that Americans in the highest income category were by far the most supportive of defunding the police. > They can afford to hold t

> A survey from YouGov found that Americans in the highest income category were by far the most supportive of defunding the police. > They can afford to hold this position, because they already live in safe, often gated communities. And they can afford to hire private security. This isn't what defund the police was about at all and is just a strawman to stop inquisitions into the actual point of the defund the police movement. > In the United States, "defund the police" is a slogan that supports removing funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police Defund the police was never a anarcho communist feel good movement despite what articles like this will guide you believe. That said, the slogan was slightly ambiguous so it was absolutely destroyed in the "marketplace of ideas". Apparently defunding the police actually means get rid of the police entirely. I guess the slogan had to be "decrease the budget, not entirely remove it just less money, for the police and move that money into other prevention and treatment methods for community support".

noch 3y ago
> Defund the police was never a anarcho communist feel good movement despite what articles like this will guide you believe. In this article titled, "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police": "Enough. We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and 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... (https://archive.is/H293i https://archive.is/H293i)
- thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
  Do you think the majority of the people who say defund the police believe that? Just because a minority of people have a terrible opinion doesn't mean the entire movement does. Also even the author doesn't believe they can actually abolish the police. > I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.
  - noch 3y ago
    > Do you think the majority of the people who say defund the police believe that? You made the following claim: >> This isn't what defund the police was about at all and is just a strawman to stop inquisitions into the actual point of the defund the police movement. I was merely providing an example, published in a paper of record in the U.S., that claims to speak for a "we", to show that indeed the spokespeople for the movement are unambiguous in what "defund" means. The article says "we mean" not "I mean". > Just because a minority of people have a terrible opinion doesn't mean the entire movement does. Certainly, intransigent minorities tend to drive movements and protests. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... Meanwhile the "larpers" attend protests and change profile pictures and "stand with" and chant slogans. That's the luxury belief part. WW2 Germany was probably similar in the sense that the majority were silent while the radicals were outspoken? Nonetheless, be careful when you defend a radical movement by asserting that, well actually, they meant a more moderate position: "[T]he motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, and say that was what you meant all along, so you’re clearly right and they’re silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement." https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...
    - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
      This isn't worth responding too, have a nice life

noch 3y ago

> Defund the police was never a anarcho communist feel good movement despite what articles like this will guide you believe. In this article titled, "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police": "Enough. We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and 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... (https://archive.is/H293i https://archive.is/H293i)

thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
Do you think the majority of the people who say defund the police believe that? Just because a minority of people have a terrible opinion doesn't mean the entire movement does. Also even the author doesn't believe they can actually abolish the police. > I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.
- noch 3y ago
  > Do you think the majority of the people who say defund the police believe that? You made the following claim: >> This isn't what defund the police was about at all and is just a strawman to stop inquisitions into the actual point of the defund the police movement. I was merely providing an example, published in a paper of record in the U.S., that claims to speak for a "we", to show that indeed the spokespeople for the movement are unambiguous in what "defund" means. The article says "we mean" not "I mean". > Just because a minority of people have a terrible opinion doesn't mean the entire movement does. Certainly, intransigent minorities tend to drive movements and protests. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... Meanwhile the "larpers" attend protests and change profile pictures and "stand with" and chant slogans. That's the luxury belief part. WW2 Germany was probably similar in the sense that the majority were silent while the radicals were outspoken? Nonetheless, be careful when you defend a radical movement by asserting that, well actually, they meant a more moderate position: "[T]he motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, and say that was what you meant all along, so you’re clearly right and they’re silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement." https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...
  - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
    This isn't worth responding too, have a nice life