This is why the defund the police people really need a better slogan. You can argue that the police should work differently than they do, but it's just obviously stupid to not have police.
> This is why the defund the police people really need a better slogan.
The defund and/or dismantle groups have acheived sufficient support to drive policy in a number of cities. What they need is concrete results to point to. While defund might also benefit from a better slogan, truly novel complex positions just aren't ever going to be effectively communicated by any simple slogan, especially when they have opponents that so understand what it means, don't want it, and are dedicated to fogging the issue to avoid direct engagement. But when you've got concrete examples to point to, it's a lot harder to fog the issue.
"Defund the police" refers to trimming bloated budgets and fully funding other programs that reduce crime such as funding inner city schools, child care for poor parents, etc.
Anecdotally from seeing discussions online and interviews on the news (which to be fair has some sample bias that will emphasize more extreme beliefs), a non negligible number of people who say "Defund the police" believe that police should be abolished.
There's a case to be made that while a city needs police it maybe doesn't need _these_ police. At some point an organization is so corrupt that it cannot be reformed. I have no problem with plans to reshape law enforcement through complete dissolution of current police departments.
Let's flip the framing: if the republicans said they have a plan to "defund social security and medicare", what do you think they are trying to do? Would your immediate reaction be positive or negative? Would "shifting budget to other programs" come to your mind?
I fail to see how this framing is useful to this discussion: Republicans enact austerity measures constantly, so I wouldn't think they would be shifting the money around anyways.
The "Defund the Police" line is coming from the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which believe in funding the social programs.
Do you find that you frequently need to explain "defund the police" to people? Don't you think that's a problem, given that a slogan is supposed to convey a clear message that is easy for everyone to understand what you're about?
It's a conversation starter. It's definitely sparked a lot of meaningful dialogues about the state of policing in the US and how to make it better for all involved.
I believe it's a conversation ender rather than starter. When people are throwing around a abolishing the police and using violent riots to push it that ends conversation rather than starts it.
It hasn't seemed to stop you from reading and even engaging with this conversation. I would think it's doing it's job as a slogan just fine. Of course you shouldn't forget the context of these "violent" riots were brought out of police violence, an on-going conversation in large part still because of the actions taken by protestors.
Hey this is me engaging with you saying everyone who holds that opinion is wrong and I'd vote the other way because won't be held hostage at the whim of mobs based on the color of people's skin.
That's not me having a conversation. That's me telling you this is actively harmful for whatever it is you're trying to talk about, because there is nothing to talk about anymore.
By allowing these riots to continue the local and state governments have abandoned the rule of law and have thus made the law unimportant.
Similarly those pushing political agendas through violent riots are terrorists and those who support them are enabling terrorism.
This isn't me having a conversation about your issue this is me telling you that your issue doesn't matter because resorting to violence and demanding those who are supposed to abate violence be abolished You've ended any converation possible.
Whatever you think it's doing it's not communicating anything except "accede or we will riot" and my response to that is violence begets violence be prepared to have things escalate instead of causing legitimate conversations.
It's a conversation like being held up is a conversation.
Lot to unpack in this response for sure. If you _personally_ feel you're being held up by this "mob based on the color of people's skin" I'm sorry you feel that way, but it shows a severe lack of of understanding when it comes to policing and how that affects communities of color.
If the police followed the "Rule of Law" there wouldn't be a disproportionate amount of Black men who face violence from the police. Should "bad cops" be held accountable? Or is everything fair game when "enforcing the law"?
Similarly, "accede or we will riot" is precisely the logical progression from "we've asked nicely to not kill us". Do you expect Americans to simply watch their family, friends and neighbors being extra-judicially killed?
It's this inability to empathize with a population, and an uncritical view of those who enforce the law that will lead to non-action, leading to more riots.
>If the police followed the "Rule of Law" there wouldn't be a disproportionate amount of Black men who face violence from the police. Should "bad cops" be held accountable? Or is everything fair game when "enforcing the law"?
For sure. but not with violent riots.
>Similarly, "accede or we will riot" is precisely the logical progression from "we've asked nicely to not kill us".
No, its terrorism. I have no problem with protests, but violent riots to push police reform are political violence, something I think leads to only more violence.
>Do you expect Americans to simply watch their family, friends and neighbors being extra-judicially killed?
No. But I expect people who perpetuate violence for political aims to keep perpetuating violence for political aims. I don't think its acceptable unless they're ready to receive political violence in kind.
>It's this inability to empathize with a population,
No. I empathize, but my empathy sits behind the knowledge that the rule of law and state monopoly of force must be maintained or all will devolve into tribal war.
>and an uncritical view of those who enforce the law that will lead to non-action, leading to more riots.
Choosing to commit political violence is a choice the rioters make. If the options are abolish the police or get riots, my reaction is "call in the national guard".
There are plenty of people to empathize with, and I don't think political violence is worth any empathy. Justifying political violence is a precursor to real civil war.
"No. I empathize, but my empathy sits behind the knowledge that the rule of law and state monopoly of force must be maintained or all will devolve into tribal war."
Some political violence is okay if the state is involved? Even if that violence is oppressive?
Politically motivated violence on behalf of the police is why we're in this situation to begin with. Any you're of the opinion that any retaliation to this violence to reform a broken system of state violence is somehow out of turn?
Now all violence is political violence because politically we don't want mobs of violent rioters looting and burning things down, so stopping them is political.
No thanks, I don't believe you to be anywhere near correct. You're an advocate for tribal warfare and that is where your policies will lead. Disaster.
Why does the US incarcerate individuals at world records? Tax Payers spend millions housing / feeding / providing healthcare to 1.4 million incarcerated people. Does the US simply have more criminals? or are we wasting money providing a ban-aid fix to crime which most first world countries have figured out.
It's much more expensive to over-police a broken social system than it is to foster the conditions which produce less crime overall.
