I read an interesting article blog post some time ago about "sanewashing" [1]
Sanewashing is the process by which radical policies get watered down - as a political movement becomes more mainstream, every new member wants to be able to explain the movement to their parents, and so chooses a slightly less radical, easier to understand interpretation. This happens over and over again until you reach the point where the watered down beliefs are the majority, and the movement finds people with the original radical beliefs are an embarrassment to be silenced.
"Defund The Police" isn't merely a confusing choice of name - the initial founders of the movement meant it literally, in the way an anarchist might. It's only as more people joined the movement that it's been sanewashed to mean "have more drug treatment, social workers and mental health crisis first responders, alongside the police"
I'd call it the motte-and-bailey fallacy. They really want the more radical version, but they pretend they mean the less radical version when people oppose them.
What do they mean? I’m guessing your answer is something like “reallocate police funds to other services”, but without your own explanation, this comment has little value other than signaling political belief.
> Largely people who get angry at the idea that black lives might matter.
This is an incredibly disappointing thing to read. Just because you disagree with another on some policy or political notion or another does not justify the belief that they hold a differing view for the most despicable reason you can come up with. Does that make sense?
