3 ms·

“Defund the police” means to reduce funding to law enforcement and reallocate that funding to social programs. In the limit case, you eliminate law enforcement

“Defund the police” means to reduce funding to law enforcement and reallocate that funding to social programs. In the limit case, you eliminate law enforcement directly. Some people in this thread were denying this or claiming that this idea was only advocated on “Twitter and at the fringes of academia”. This claim was false because the idea was actually published by the New York Times. Whatever particular hair you’re splitting doesn’t change that, and the fact that you’re focused on splitting that hair in particular only demonstrates the degree of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty required to make this extreme proposal sound like anything more than the gibbering nonsense it is.

littlestymaar 3y ago
The one building strawman is then accusing others of intellectual dishonesty, the poor man's argument playbook has been followed till the end and we can now stop this conversation. Thanks for making everyone lose their time.
- philwelch 3y ago
  The strawman was constructed by yourself. Your strawman is: > someone who takes the argument as in “literally remove the police directly and let the chaos begin” I clicked the “parent” links to read every comment in this chain about defunding the police and none of the people in this discussion match the strawman you describe. My characterization of “defund/abolish the police”, in which funding for law enforcement is reallocated to social programs, is completely consistent with how automatic6131 and cmcaleer were characterizing the slogan, contra yourself and gizmo. The first reference to abolition was automatic’s here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38083132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38083132): > 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. Indeed you do not. This is exactly what the NYT piece I linked to says, in so many words. And you’ve admitted as much yourself.

littlestymaar 3y ago

The one building strawman is then accusing others of intellectual dishonesty, the poor man's argument playbook has been followed till the end and we can now stop this conversation. Thanks for making everyone lose their time.

philwelch 3y ago
The strawman was constructed by yourself. Your strawman is: > someone who takes the argument as in “literally remove the police directly and let the chaos begin” I clicked the “parent” links to read every comment in this chain about defunding the police and none of the people in this discussion match the strawman you describe. My characterization of “defund/abolish the police”, in which funding for law enforcement is reallocated to social programs, is completely consistent with how automatic6131 and cmcaleer were characterizing the slogan, contra yourself and gizmo. The first reference to abolition was automatic’s here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38083132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38083132): > 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. Indeed you do not. This is exactly what the NYT piece I linked to says, in so many words. And you’ve admitted as much yourself.