4 ms·

Your comment is pretty incendiary so I won't go through it point by point, but I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) and

by gizmo 3y ago

Your comment is pretty incendiary so I won't go through it point by point, but I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) and abolishing the police. Abolishing the police altogether is more of a utopian goal and very few people think society can function today without some kind of police. That said, the typical day-to-day work for a police officer doesn't require violence or the threat of violence, and the police force shouldn't behave like some kind of paramilitary unit.

RubberbandSoul 3y ago
> defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) Redefining words in order to win arguments. Nice. Defunding means exactly that. I know this because that is what happened to the police forces that were defunded. Not entirely defunded, but they ended up with less money in their budget. > the typical day-to-day work for a police officer doesn't require violence or the threat of violence Says who? Are you a cop? Do you have cops in the family? Are you a law enforcement expert? Do you have any source or statistic whatsoever to back that up?
- jyounker 3y ago
  > Redefining words in order to win arguments. Nice. Defunding means exactly > that. I know this because that is what happened to the police forces that > were defunded. Not entirely defunded, but they ended up with less money > in their budget. The poster is not redefining the term. The "Defund The Police" movement has very specific and very well documented goals: Use police only for law-enforcement, and use specialized responders for non-law enforcement interactions. For example, you send mental health specialists when someone is threatening suicide. This will reduce funding for the police, but it also reduces the police's workload. Is the movement poorly named? Yes. Is their goal to eliminate police? Absolutely not.
  - RubberbandSoul 3y ago
    There's a person waving a knife or gun around in public threatening to commit suicide. Now what? There's a person threatening suicide in public and then pulling out a knife or gun when the authorities show up. Now what? It's easy to be an armchair law enforcement expert and dream up scenarios where the good guys always wins. But reality doesn't conform to your utopian ideas.
  - woooooo 3y ago
    The movement existed for five seconds, had a really bad idea as their name, and now you're saying it was all a misunderstanding and they are really moderates? Just take the L. The movement messed up.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    The "defund the police" movement was not that well organized but I agree, they do have very specific and very well documented goals: the end of policing. They went hand-in-hand with the prison abolitionist movement. I get that you may not want to eliminate police, but I assure you, a large number of the people at the center of these movements do want that.
  - jwarden 3y ago
    The claim that the "defund the police" movement had any goal other than defunding the police is an example of "sanewashing": https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sanewashing https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sanewashing
- gizmo 3y ago
  Yes, reduce funding so police departments don't turn paramilitary. In the UK for instance most officers don't even carry guns.
  - RubberbandSoul 3y ago
    Great. https://www.statista.com/statistics/288256/violent-crimes-in-england-and-wales/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/288256/violent-crimes-in...
    - gizmo 3y ago
      UK police didn't have guns in the early 2000s either. The rise in recorded violent crime can't be explained by something that hasn't changed. You're just trolling now. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/trends-in-violent-crime/#:~:text=In%20contrast%20to%20the%20downward,improvements%20in%20police%20recording%20practices https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/trends-in-violent-crime/#....
      - RubberbandSoul 3y ago
        I'm not trolling. Violent crime necessitates armed law enforcement. While the rise in violent crime isn't caused by unarmed police officers the fact that they are unarmed didn't prohibit the rise in violent crime.
        gizmo 3y ago
        Did you even look at the link I included that disputes that violent crime is trending up at all? Your chart shows that digital cameras have gotten cheap. Not that violent crime has actually gone up. > The ONS reported that victimisation rates shown by the CSEW have been decreasing in the long term. They peaked in the year ending December 1995, when 4.7% of adults were a victim of violent crime. Rates have remained below 2% since the year ending March 2014. > In contrast to the downward trend shown by the CSEW, the ONS highlighted that police recorded violent crime increased between the years ending March 2013 and March 2022. The ONS explained that these increases are thought to be driven by improvements in police recording practices
automatic6131 3y ago
> I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) and abolishing the police You are playing the Motte and Bailey[1] tactic perfectly. You say that defunding means only "demilitarizing", which many people would probably agree with. But when put into practise, it's never that. I mean, you don't need to delve very far into academia or lefty twitter to find extremist people saying exactly this, that defund does actually mean abolish, or is the first step to it. And the extremists are important in this case, because they are the ones put in power, or writing the text books for next generation in power. So either, you're a fool & a useful idiot mindlessly parroting this Motte, or you're the deviant waiting to implement the Bailey.
- gizmo 3y ago
  I would argue you find that kind of left wing extremist exclusively on twitter and at the fringes of academia. They have no power and are not taken very seriously.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    You also find them published in the New York Times: 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...
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      You just found this on Google and because this is behind a paywall you haven't read it, right? Because the argument made here isn't the one you think it is: it's about financing social care in order to be able to make crime disappear (making the police “obsolete”). Now I don't think that's realistic, and no matter how fair your society is going to be there would always be the need for some police in the end (the author themselves acknowledge that as well when talking about “less needs” for the police), but claiming that they want to abolish the police in the sense of "directly removing it in today's society" is a strawman. (Yes the provocative title is an invitation to strawmans but you fell for the trap)
cmcaleer 3y ago
I really don't think I'm being too incendiary. I didn't want to just spew bile, I'm frustrated at the wasted opportunity and the fact that those who have suffered most from it are those who those with the luxury beliefs were purporting to represent, and tried to show how these beliefs have harmed those who they're purportedly protecting. People shouldn't kid themselves about the consequences if they campaigned for this; it should be a useful lesson in politics for everyone. > defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) I agree with this! But this is reformation, not defunding. In fact, trying to create a police force more in line with Peelian principles will cost a lot more. "Reform the police" is very broad and has a lot of room for interpretation. "Defund the police" is a very straightforward request. Words have meanings, and defund does not mean demilitarize. I would bet a large amount of money on "Defund the police" polling worse with all political groups than "Reform the police" by a huge margin. > the police force shouldn't behave like some kind of paramilitary unit I agree with this too! Perhaps this could be done through some kind of reform ;)
- gizmo 3y ago
  Reform requires political will. And political will typically materializes when reform (a) benefits the politicians directly, (b) is made beneficial by lobbyists, (c) the public loudly demands it. For (c) the question is: how to get the public worked up enough about an issue that they take to the streets and demand change? Nuance and careful analysis don't motivate people like catchy slogans and impossible demands. Young people who chant impossible slogans sometimes really change society for the better. People who think in shades of gray and dream of carefully considered incremental change tend not to be involved with political action at all.
lelanthran 3y ago
> but I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) That wasn't the popular message being broadcast into the public space.
steveBK123 3y ago
Do you have the same benign interpretation when a politician says defund say.. Social Security, or Medicare?

by gizmo 3y ago

RubberbandSoul 3y ago

> defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) Redefining words in order to win arguments. Nice. Defunding means exactly that. I know this because that is what happened to the police forces that were defunded. Not entirely defunded, but they ended up with less money in their budget. > the typical day-to-day work for a police officer doesn't require violence or the threat of violence Says who? Are you a cop? Do you have cops in the family? Are you a law enforcement expert? Do you have any source or statistic whatsoever to back that up?

jyounker 3y ago
> Redefining words in order to win arguments. Nice. Defunding means exactly > that. I know this because that is what happened to the police forces that > were defunded. Not entirely defunded, but they ended up with less money > in their budget. The poster is not redefining the term. The "Defund The Police" movement has very specific and very well documented goals: Use police only for law-enforcement, and use specialized responders for non-law enforcement interactions. For example, you send mental health specialists when someone is threatening suicide. This will reduce funding for the police, but it also reduces the police's workload. Is the movement poorly named? Yes. Is their goal to eliminate police? Absolutely not.
- RubberbandSoul 3y ago
  There's a person waving a knife or gun around in public threatening to commit suicide. Now what? There's a person threatening suicide in public and then pulling out a knife or gun when the authorities show up. Now what? It's easy to be an armchair law enforcement expert and dream up scenarios where the good guys always wins. But reality doesn't conform to your utopian ideas.
- woooooo 3y ago
  The movement existed for five seconds, had a really bad idea as their name, and now you're saying it was all a misunderstanding and they are really moderates? Just take the L. The movement messed up.
- ameister14 3y ago
  The "defund the police" movement was not that well organized but I agree, they do have very specific and very well documented goals: the end of policing. They went hand-in-hand with the prison abolitionist movement. I get that you may not want to eliminate police, but I assure you, a large number of the people at the center of these movements do want that.
- jwarden 3y ago
  The claim that the "defund the police" movement had any goal other than defunding the police is an example of "sanewashing": https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sanewashing https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sanewashing
gizmo 3y ago
Yes, reduce funding so police departments don't turn paramilitary. In the UK for instance most officers don't even carry guns.
- RubberbandSoul 3y ago
  Great. https://www.statista.com/statistics/288256/violent-crimes-in-england-and-wales/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/288256/violent-crimes-in...
  - gizmo 3y ago
    UK police didn't have guns in the early 2000s either. The rise in recorded violent crime can't be explained by something that hasn't changed. You're just trolling now. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/trends-in-violent-crime/#:~:text=In%20contrast%20to%20the%20downward,improvements%20in%20police%20recording%20practices https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/trends-in-violent-crime/#....
    - RubberbandSoul 3y ago
      I'm not trolling. Violent crime necessitates armed law enforcement. While the rise in violent crime isn't caused by unarmed police officers the fact that they are unarmed didn't prohibit the rise in violent crime.
      - gizmo 3y ago
        Did you even look at the link I included that disputes that violent crime is trending up at all? Your chart shows that digital cameras have gotten cheap. Not that violent crime has actually gone up. > The ONS reported that victimisation rates shown by the CSEW have been decreasing in the long term. They peaked in the year ending December 1995, when 4.7% of adults were a victim of violent crime. Rates have remained below 2% since the year ending March 2014. > In contrast to the downward trend shown by the CSEW, the ONS highlighted that police recorded violent crime increased between the years ending March 2013 and March 2022. The ONS explained that these increases are thought to be driven by improvements in police recording practices

automatic6131 3y ago

> I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) and abolishing the police You are playing the Motte and Bailey[1] tactic perfectly. You say that defunding means only "demilitarizing", which many people would probably agree with. But when put into practise, it's never that. I mean, you don't need to delve very far into academia or lefty twitter to find extremist people saying exactly this, that defund does actually mean abolish, or is the first step to it. And the extremists are important in this case, because they are the ones put in power, or writing the text books for next generation in power. So either, you're a fool & a useful idiot mindlessly parroting this Motte, or you're the deviant waiting to implement the Bailey.

gizmo 3y ago
I would argue you find that kind of left wing extremist exclusively on twitter and at the fringes of academia. They have no power and are not taken very seriously.
- philwelch 3y ago
  You also find them published in the New York Times: 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...
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    You just found this on Google and because this is behind a paywall you haven't read it, right? Because the argument made here isn't the one you think it is: it's about financing social care in order to be able to make crime disappear (making the police “obsolete”). Now I don't think that's realistic, and no matter how fair your society is going to be there would always be the need for some police in the end (the author themselves acknowledge that as well when talking about “less needs” for the police), but claiming that they want to abolish the police in the sense of "directly removing it in today's society" is a strawman. (Yes the provocative title is an invitation to strawmans but you fell for the trap)

cmcaleer 3y ago

I really don't think I'm being too incendiary. I didn't want to just spew bile, I'm frustrated at the wasted opportunity and the fact that those who have suffered most from it are those who those with the luxury beliefs were purporting to represent, and tried to show how these beliefs have harmed those who they're purportedly protecting. People shouldn't kid themselves about the consequences if they campaigned for this; it should be a useful lesson in politics for everyone. > defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) I agree with this! But this is reformation, not defunding. In fact, trying to create a police force more in line with Peelian principles will cost a lot more. "Reform the police" is very broad and has a lot of room for interpretation. "Defund the police" is a very straightforward request. Words have meanings, and defund does not mean demilitarize. I would bet a large amount of money on "Defund the police" polling worse with all political groups than "Reform the police" by a huge margin. > the police force shouldn't behave like some kind of paramilitary unit I agree with this too! Perhaps this could be done through some kind of reform ;)

gizmo 3y ago
Reform requires political will. And political will typically materializes when reform (a) benefits the politicians directly, (b) is made beneficial by lobbyists, (c) the public loudly demands it. For (c) the question is: how to get the public worked up enough about an issue that they take to the streets and demand change? Nuance and careful analysis don't motivate people like catchy slogans and impossible demands. Young people who chant impossible slogans sometimes really change society for the better. People who think in shades of gray and dream of carefully considered incremental change tend not to be involved with political action at all.

lelanthran 3y ago

> but I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) That wasn't the popular message being broadcast into the public space.

steveBK123 3y ago

Do you have the same benign interpretation when a politician says defund say.. Social Security, or Medicare?