Defund the Police

[Biff Tannen 45676]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Zero responses to this from the very concerned centrists.

I have you on ignore.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Except you aren’t arguing the slogan. You’re arguing about the nature of the reform and that we shouldn’t defund police. So your issue is with the general idea of taking police funding away not the slogan that is used for it.

I think if you'd read my last couple of posts with scintilla of reading comprehension, you would understand that I am arguing the slogan.

I'm not sure what your point is.   If I think we should add funding to the police, its a stupid slogan and wrongheaded.  If I don't think we should add funding to the police, it's a mostly just stupid and just a little wrongheaded.  If I thought we should figure out a way to actually defund the police, it's probably just politically stupid. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If the Dems can get kneecapped by one shitty slogan, it’s more a testament to the weakness of the party leadership than it is the slogan. 

And you thinking it was messaging by Fox that made "Defund the Police" a shitty slogan is a testament to petulant stupidity. 

I'll bet more than 50% of the non-Fox listeners on this board, when they first heard that slogan, said, out loud, WTF?

[bad_teammate 13195]

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, KNOWING that the majority of Americans are simple beings who will maintain strong beliefs on items 1 and 2, how can you pitch item 3 in a way that won't make them say "nope, don't want that?"

Again, I don't know if you guys are incapable of reading or comprehending simple concepts, but I'll say it again: "Defund the Police" isn't a political slogan for politicians trying to win votes.

It is a statement from voters about something they want. They aren't politicians. They aren't campaign strategists. They are citizens demanding something. Their audience isn't other voters, their audience is the people in power.

Quote

Messaging matters, it always has, because that's all that most people even process.

Sure, and that's the politician's job, not the voters'.

25 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I have you on ignore.

I'm not the one who posted it.

Also, to the people who insist on informing me of whether or not they like me or have me on ignore...

[Degenerate Gardner 4085]

You're fun.

I will let you know where I land on the whole Ignore thing.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Degenerate Gardner

[bad_teammate 13195]

19 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I'll bet more than 50% of the non-Fox listeners on this board, when they first heard that slogan, said, out loud, WTF?

Well shit if a bunch of centrist white men over 35 didn't immediately love it then I guess it's pointless.

Rome was built in a day, after all.

[Brisketexan 105097]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It is a statement from voters about something they want. They aren't politicians. They aren't campaign strategists. They are citizens demanding something. Their audience isn't other voters, their audience is the people in power.

Cool.  Demand all you want,  however you want.  It's ineffective and counterproductive.  Viva la gente, and all that -- demand all you want, use the verbiage you want.  The rest of us are just here to tell you that it's counter-productive.  The politicians don't have to listen because the voters -- to whom those politicians answer, and suck up do -- aren't too keen on that message.

Do whatever you want.  Just understand that they way you are going about it isn't working.

[tantric superman 4667]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Well shit if a bunch of centrist white men over 35 didn't immediately love it then I guess it's pointless.

 

Well, plus one mulatto born in Kenya.

[bad_teammate 13195]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  Demand all you want,  however you want.  It's ineffective and counterproductive.  Viva la gente, and all that -- demand all you want, use the verbiage you want.  The rest of us are just here to tell you that it's counter-productive.  The politicians don't have to listen because the voters -- to whom those politicians answer, and suck up do -- aren't too keen on that message.

Why?

Serious question.

Quote

Just understand that they way you are going about it isn't working.

Is it not? Evidence?

Looks to me like there is a shitload more discussion about police funding since defund started than there was before.

But really you should interrogate yourself to answer the "Why?" above. It might be instructive if you're capable of calm self-reflection and not just increasingly amplified hysteria.

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Well, plus one mulatto born in Kenya.

He posts here?

[bad_teammate 13195]

Look, I'm just here to tell these poor black people how to advocate for themselves. I don't like it, one might consider it this white man's burden.

[washparkhorn 9939]

branding miscue; monetize ~neoliberal marketer

Someone marketed lawn dart to parents, ffs. This isn't difficult. One of you myth-makers needs to step up and help them rebrand.

Everyone wants bad cops gone. Bad cops are the reveries of old nightmares.

Lend a hand, don't tear it down. The concern is serious and valid for too many. I am listening.

Edited December 4, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Brisketexan 105097]

52 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why?

Serious question.

Is it not? Evidence?

Looks to me like there is a shitload more discussion about police funding since defund started than there was before.

But really you should interrogate yourself to answer the "Why?" above. It might be instructive if you're capable of calm self-reflection and not just increasingly amplified hysteria.

He posts here?

Meh, you do you.  As for me, I'm really pleased by the traction that has been gained in terms of the broader population -- not just black people, who nobody listened to for a damned long time -- regarding shitty, violent, criminal policing.  Compare the numbers today to 20 years ago, and you'll get a shitload more non-black people agreeing with things like "police abuse their authority" and "police are too prone to commit violence against minorities."  That's good.  Turning the tide of broad public opinion is how real change comes about.  We may not like it -- I don't, it's kind of shitty that I have to wait till we get enough disengaged mouthbreathers from Iowa to buy into something before it gets enough voter push to actually change laws, but math is math.

You need a foundation pushing for thoughtful, detailed, and even radical change.   But you need the support of at least some disengaged mouthbreathers to turn bold ideas into action.  I'm not making that shit up, it's the way shit works.  I'm not being hysterical at all -- I'm actually being quite dispassionate here.  Disengaged mouthbreathers hear a message like "cops are too big for their britches, and need to be reined in to follow the law like everyone else," and they nod.  They hear a message like "instead of sending roided up cops with guns to deal with that autistic kid down the street, maybe we should have people actually trained to deal with that, and use some of our public safety funding for that," and they nod again.  They hear a message like "defund the police," and they hear "no more cops," and their little reptilian brains go "but I am afraid of shit!  Who will protect me?  No more cops is bad!"  And you just lost all those nods you were getting.

Washpark is right.  You can sell anything to anyone with the right message.  And you can fail to sell the best product in the world with a bad message.  I mean, which would you buy, a "delicious, juicy ribeye, grilled to perfection!" or "charred flesh that will turn into a stinky log of shit?"  Exact same product.  Messaging matters.

[Brisketexan 105097]

48 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

branding miscue; monetize ~neoliberal marketer

Someone marketed lawn dart to parents, ffs. This isn't difficult. One of you myth-makers needs to step up and help them rebrand.

Everyone wants bad cops gone. Bad cops are the reveries of old nightmares.

Lend a hand, don't tear it down. The concern is serious and valid for too many. I am listening.

Also, props for Renoir.  Even when I don't know it's his, I end up loving it.

This one at the Musee d'Orsay grabbed me, in part because the subject is my daughter's doppleganger:

 

Great stuff.

[bad_teammate 13195]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We may not like it -- I don't, it's kind of shitty that I have to wait till we get enough disengaged mouthbreathers from Iowa to buy into something before it gets enough voter push to actually change laws, but math is math.

The math says we only need 51%.

Quote

Disengaged mouthbreathers hear a message like "cops are too big for their britches, and need to be reined in to follow the law like everyone else," and they nod. They hear a message like "instead of sending roided up cops with guns to deal with that autistic kid down the street, maybe we should have people actually trained to deal with that, and use some of our public safety funding for that," and they nod again.  They hear a message like "defund the police," and they hear "no more cops," and their little reptilian brains go "but I am afraid of shit!  Who will protect me?  No more cops is bad!"  And you just lost all those nods you were getting.

Again... you're talking about politicians appealing to voters. Which is not what "defund the police" is.

No one is arguing that all Iowa Democrats running for office MUST start saying "defund the police". What you and others are arguing is that no one anywhere should say "defund the police" because it might hurt the Iowa Democrat running for office.

But beyond that, the horse is out of the barn. The street activists already said it and it's not going away. The Republicans aren't going to stop saying it to fear-monger. The genie is out of the bottle. All the centrist scolds are accomplishing now is reinforcing the message the Republicans want to promote.

Choose a side.

 

Quote

Washpark is right.  You can sell anything to anyone with the right message.  And you can fail to sell the best product in the world with a bad message.  I mean, which would you buy, a "delicious, juicy ribeye, grilled to perfection!" or "charred flesh that will turn into a stinky log of shit?"  Exact same product.  Messaging matters.

For the dozenth time... "defund the police" isn't from politicians trying to sell you anything. It is local voters demanding change from their local leaders.

And again, here we are talking about it and Obama himself is addressing it ... it's working. I think that's what pisses you guys off the most.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Also, you guys are wrong about how people interpret Defund the Police.

------------------------------
The new survey from Monmouth University found that 77 percent of American adults say that "defund the police" means to "change the way the police departments operate," not to eliminate them. That view is  shared by 73 percent of white, non-college educated Americans and two-thirds of Republicans, Trump's core voters. 

Just 18 percent of Americans say the movement wants to "get rid of police departments," a view shared by only 28 percent of Republicans and 18 percent of independents. 
------------------------------

Just imagine how much easier this would be if the centrists and shitlibs weren't openly hostile to the movement.

What I'm seeing here, especially in Brisket's post, is an absolute certainty that everyone else (the mouthbreathers, the street activists) are absolute fucking idiots that need our college-educated liberal paternalism.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by bad_teammate

[Brisketexan 105097]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The math says we only need 51%.

Again... you're talking about politicians appealing to voters. Which is not what "defund the police" is.

No one is arguing that all Iowa Democrats running for office MUST start saying "defund the police". What you and others are arguing is that no one anywhere should say "defund the police" because it might hurt the Iowa Democrat running for office.

But beyond that, the horse is out of the barn. The street activists already said it and it's not going away. The Republicans aren't going to stop saying it to fear-monger. The genie is out of the bottle. All the centrist scolds are accomplishing now is reinforcing the message the Republicans want to promote.

Choose a side.

 

For the dozenth time... "defund the police" isn't from politicians trying to sell you anything. It is local voters demanding change from their local leaders.

And again, here we are talking about it and Obama himself is addressing it ... it's working. I think that's what pisses you guys off the most.

Yeah, man.  I'm here at my keyboard, flinging invective against people on an internet site because I am ROYALLY pissed that the issue of tackling shitty policing is finally getting traction.  If there's anything I've stood for my entire life, it's making sure that shitty policing continues unabated.  I live for that, anything that threatens that PISSES ME OFF!

Or....and here's a wacky take....I'm thrilled that the idea of tackling shitty policing has gotten traction, including mainstream traction, but I'm frustrated that careless messaging is putting sand in the gears of that progress.

Nahh, you must be right.  I secretly love shitty cops murdering black people, and it INFURIATES me that people might actually be taking steps to limit that bullshit.

[Sawbonz 27547]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, man.  I'm here at my keyboard, flinging invective against people on an internet site because I am ROYALLY pissed that the issue of tackling shitty policing is finally getting traction.  If there's anything I've stood for my entire life, it's making sure that shitty policing continues unabated.  I live for that, anything that threatens that PISSES ME OFF!

Or....and here's a wacky take....I'm thrilled that the idea of tackling shitty policing has gotten traction, including mainstream traction, but I'm frustrated that careless messaging is putting sand in the gears of that progress.

Nahh, you must be right.  I secretly love shitty cops murdering black people, and it INFURIATES me that people might actually be taking steps to limit that bullshit.

Well he admits to being a bad teammate 

[bad_teammate 13195]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, man.  I'm here at my keyboard, flinging invective against people on an internet site because I am ROYALLY pissed that my concern-troll punditry isn't worth the electrons spent displaying it.

Fixed for truth.

Any commentary on being dead wrong about how people actually perceive "defund the police"?

Edited December 4, 2020 by bad_teammate

[washparkhorn 9939]

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Well he admits to being a bad teammate 

Poor branding. Missed opportunity. No monetization. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Teammate_Trying_To_#DoBetter

[washparkhorn 9939]

C'mon marketers - we need rebranding ideas - something that get people's attention like, "Defund the Police" or "Kill your Facebook." 

[Sawbonz 27547]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Teammate_Trying_To_#DoBetter

[washparkhorn 9939]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Teammate_Trying_To_#DoBetter

Reliable_Scout_cockblocking_Brunch (?)

Edited December 4, 2020 by washparkhorn

[staboner 4969]

11 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

C'mon marketers - we need rebranding ideas - something that get people's attention like, "Defund the Police" or "Kill your Facebook." 

how about Worst_teammate?

Edited December 4, 2020 by staboner

[Texaspython 231]

What this boils down to:

Social issue

Progressives freak out and start screaming hysterically.

Centrists, “we agree guys but you’re going about it all the wrong way”.

Progressives, “you’re awful and worse than republicans”.

Centrists, wtf

Swing voters, “progressives are dangerous as shit”.

Lose election

[washparkhorn 9939]

Just now, Texaspython said:

What this boils down to:

Death, Dismemberment, and Disability. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, Texaspython said:

What this boils down to:

Social issue

Progressives freak out and start screaming hysterically.

Centrists, “we agree guys but you’re going about it all the wrong way”.

Progressives, “you’re awful and worse than republicans”.

Centrists, wtf

Swing voters, “progressives are dangerous as shit”.

Lose election

Which "defund the police" progressives lost elections?

[tantric superman 4667]

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What I'm seeing here, especially in Brisket's post, is an absolute certainty that everyone else (the mouthbreathers, the street activists) are absolute fucking idiots that need our college-educated liberal paternalism.

What I'm seeing is a guy who likes a painter I thought only chicks liked. 

[Brisketexan 105097]

What I'm seeing is a guy who likes a painter I thought only chicks liked. 

I like what I like. And I’ve been around long enough that IDGAF. C’est la vie.

[tantric superman 4667]

bt, I'm curious as to where you live, and whether you socialize with many Trump supporters.  I will admit I don't, but I do have a handful of family members and friends who fit the bill. 

In brief conversations with them, over the last year, they have two main issues -- the Dems are socialists and the Dems don't support the police and law and order.

Virtually every house that had Republican political signs this year in my NE Dallas near suburban neighborhood had "back the blue" signs as well. 

The Dems have lost blue collar and union folks over the years, and that includes police and firefighter unions.  I think that is still fertile ground for the Dems to pick up some support, especially if the Repubs stay Trumpy.   It just seems so damn intuitive that it's hard to discuss.

[washparkhorn 9939]

Renoir always reminds me of "stolen glances" - in public and in private. A brief memorable human connection.

_____

Fox News pushed the narrative that Democrats are run by the progressives/socialists/communists, which is, of course, a big lie. The Democratic Party is led by those on the center right - with support from bloodthirsty neocons. Fox said just the opposite - the Democratic Party is run by AOC and Bernie. Dummy dum dumbs on the Democratic Party split and who is and is not in power. Trumpers are confused. 

Trumpers are going to need a constant reminder they were trapped in a media silo - apart from reality. It's a hard pill to swallow, but if you keep providing receipts, they are responsive to truth. They know some cops are bastards. And if they have a kid in harm's way of bastard cops, they admit concern.

Edited December 4, 2020 by washparkhorn

[TwiceHorn 31452]

7 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Dude, the slogan IS the problem.  If they had come out from the beginning with Reform the Police, or something similar, centrists and center-right people probably wouldn't have freaked out.  Trumpkins, well nothing we can do there, but when you say DEFUND THE POLICE to the average person, they immediately think "holy shit, they want to abolish the police and have anarchy!"

It's shitty marketing and they should feel shitty that they came up with it.

It plays right into the ultra-divisiveness that curses the country.  It's an extreme slogan for a not-extreme idea.

And, I'm not quite convinced that it's wholly racism that opposes it.  It is more generalized fear.  Fear of browns is certainly one species of it, but fear of drunk drivers, fear of human traffickers, and so on and so forth has been extremely reliable political fodder for ages.  Also, that whole fear thing works in the brown parts of the cities, too, at times with more force than in the whitish burbs.

Edited December 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[washparkhorn 9939]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

It plays right into the ultra-divisiveness that curses the country.  It's an extreme slogan for a not-extreme idea.

And, I'm not quite convinced that it's wholly racism that opposes it.  It is more generalized fear.  Fear of browns is certainly one species of it, but fear of drunk drivers, fear of human traffickers, and so on and so forth has been extremely reliable political fodder for ages.

Out of rep. Well said.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

26 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

bt, I'm curious as to where you live, and whether you socialize with many Trump supporters.  I will admit I don't, but I do have a handful of family members and friends who fit the bill. 

In brief conversations with them, over the last year, they have two main issues -- the Dems are socialists and the Dems don't support the police and law and order.

Virtually every house that had Republican political signs this year in my NE Dallas near suburban neighborhood had "back the blue" signs as well. 

The Dems have lost blue collar and union folks over the years, and that includes police and firefighter unions.  I think that is still fertile ground for the Dems to pick up some support, especially if the Repubs stay Trumpy.   It just seems so damn intuitive that it's hard to discuss.

I believe it has been established that b_t lives in the most affluent suburb of Houston. I really can't guess how Trumpy it is.

Edited December 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TornACL 7698]

Can we defund the portion of the police budget that covers squad car lights?

Have you seen a police car that's pulled someone over at night, lately? There are literally about 150 different red and blue small lights all over the fucking car now, as if the blaring red and blues on top weren't enough. 

It's the most idiocracy thing ever, and such a complete waste of money.

I am sure some light company is making 500M a year selling that bullshit to idiot city purchasing people/cop unions. Probably with the sales pitch that if ten lights are safe, imagine how safe a thousand would be!

[Satchel 6938]

Until Democrats  learn to care about messaging and understand that the message received is the message, they should stay away from sloganeering. 

[Sawbonz 27547]

40 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Which "defund the police" progressives lost elections?

This is a bit disingenuous. I don’t think anyone is trying to say progressive candidates lost their elections because of wanting to defund police. Progressive candidates who won did so in solidly blue districts by and large. Where the losses occurred were in former red districts that went blue in 2018 and reverted in 2020 despite Biden outperforming Trump, and in places where analysts thought Democrats could make inroads due to Trump’s unpopularity. I don’t have hard numbers but it’s more than just the centrists on this board that feel this way. Andrew Cuomo and James Clyburn have talked about it in interviews.

And it likely had an effect even in solidly blue districts although obviously not enough to impact the outcome; according  to this article Biden outperformed Omar in her district by >15 points  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/in-minnesota-and-beyond-defund-the-police-weighed-on-democrats-11605700803

 

 

 

[Texaspython 231]

40 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is a bit disingenuous. I don’t think anyone is trying to say progressive candidates lost their elections because of wanting to defund police. Progressive candidates who won did so in solidly blue districts by and large. Where the losses occurred were in former red districts that went blue in 2018 and reverted in 2020 despite Biden outperforming Trump, and in places where analysts thought Democrats could make inroads due to Trump’s unpopularity. I don’t have hard numbers but it’s more than just the centrists on this board that feel this way. Andrew Cuomo and James Clyburn have talked about it in interviews.

And it likely had an effect even in solidly blue districts although obviously not enough to impact the outcome; according  to this article Biden outperformed Omar in her district by >15 points  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/in-minnesota-and-beyond-defund-the-police-weighed-on-democrats-11605700803

 

 

 

It’s so incredibly stupid it blows my mind. 

[Continental Op 3934]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Or, maybe, people with sense realize that 80% of the people in the US do NOT examine policy issues in any detail, and instead latch onto high-level concepts.  For example, I would venture that a majority of people have the following three positions:

1 -- we don't want bad cops doing bad things.

2 -- but we do still need cops, because crime still is a thing.

3 -- "defunding the police" sounds like an overreaction to issue 1, which will make hurt everyone with respect to issue 2.

 

Now, we can sit here and argue against those folks till we're blue in the face.  We can explain the actual details and nuances of "defund the police," to put them at ease and realize that while some real-deal and significant changes need to happen, that doesn't mean "we won't have police to stop crime anymore."  It wouldn't matter, because they don't think beyond the simple statements in 1-3, and they never will.

So, KNOWING that the majority of Americans are simple beings who will maintain strong beliefs on items 1 and 2, how can you pitch item 3 in a way that won't make them say "nope, don't want that?"

It's not a fucking hard question.  Being right is nifty.  But convincing the majority to support a path that will lead to the right outcome is how shit gets done.  Messaging matters, it always has, because that's all that most people even process.

You're trying to reason with the left wing equivalent of Trumpers.  In their eyes everyone to the right of them wants the police to be allowed to kill minorities at will for no reason at all.

[elfenix 34232]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

the ring of suburbs leeching off of the urban core without contributing to the tax base necessary to keep it up is one of the worst things fucking over america.  that means you, too, bad_teammate.

Edited December 4, 2020 by elfenix

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Defund healthcare!

WTF?  No, we need healthcare.  

No, no.  By “defund” I’m simply saying we need to reform the way the healthcare system works.  Like shifting resources to more preventative care, removing the inefficiencies of third party insurance and pricing that isn’t transparent, and decoupling health insurance from employment.

Ok, but “defund” means to defund, not to do any of that other stuff.

HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT IF WE DON’T CATCH YOUR ATTENTION BY CALLING IT DEFUNDING INSTEAD OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS, YOU RACIST ELITIST SHITLIB CENTRIST WHO INSISTS UPON WORDS HAVING MEANING!!!

Um, I disagree with your marketing strategy.

[15 pages later]

Ok, so basically I’m just going to antagonize you in increasingly nonsensical ways to distract from the fact that we said “defund” because at the time we really meant “defund”.  But now we can’t admit that because we were way out over our skis and most people think it’s fucking crazy.  So, I’m just going to pretend I’ve actually been saying the same thing as you all along about reforming, just in words that don’t mean that, but still somehow you’re wrong and not serious about change even though we’re saying the same thing.  Bernie 2024!  

You are a genius. What a takedown. Someone bring that JR gif of WWF on here. I mean, the glass-break-.mp3 and then longhornmatt coming in chugging a beer, oh my god what a take down this was.

Also, I'll just leave this here for the lulz from the same people who just wanted to be heard and grab the attention and not really mean defund and abolish.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/us/minneapolis-mayor-police-abolition/index.html

While protests on Saturday were mostly peaceful, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was met with a chorus of boos after telling a group of demonstrators he did not support abolishing the city police department.

Multiple videos on social media show the confrontation, which took place when protesters marched to Frey's home and called for him to come out, according to CNN affiliate WCCO-TV. Protesters asked Frey directly if he supported defunding the Minneapolis Police Department.

When Frey replied that he did not, the crowd booed him as he walked away. They also chanted "Go home, Jacob, go home" and "shame," according to video posted to Twitter.

Edited December 4, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[Rimbo 25921]

this may be a dumb question, but ah...

 

didn't they break up in, like, 1986?

[bad_teammate 13195]

I posted evidence that people at large see “Defund the Police” and understand it as “Strongly Reform the Police” and the posters here just blitz by the evidence and continue reciting their article of faith that just so happens to reinforce their own unearned sense of intellectual superiority.

Evidence be damned.

#BlueMAGA

10 hours ago, tantric superman said:

The Dems have lost blue collar and union folks over the years, and that includes police and firefighter unions.  I think that is still fertile ground for the Dems to pick up some support, especially if the Repubs stay Trumpy.   It just seems so damn intuitive that it's hard to discuss.

At the end of the day, people care about their money. Blue Lives Matter and American flags are all nice totems to display whenever the money isn't right, but if you make someone's money right you'll get them on your side. The blue collar voter will trade hugging the police for more money in their pocket any day.

Democrats don't hate police. Not even progressive Dems. That will be easier to make them believe once mainstream Democrats stop standing next to Republicans in shouting it from the rooftops.

9 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

This is a bit disingenuous. I don’t think anyone is trying to say progressive candidates lost their elections because of wanting to defund police. Progressive candidates who won did so in solidly blue districts by and large.

So shouldn't progressive candidates get to run how they want? Or do solid blue areas have to live as if you and your centrist beliefs are the center of their world as well as your own?

That's ultimately what you and most others here are calling for: Telling activists where black people actually live to shut up and live their lives to suit you.

Quote

Where the losses occurred were in former red districts that went blue in 2018 and reverted in 2020 despite Biden outperforming Trump, and in places where analysts thought Democrats could make inroads due to Trump’s unpopularity. I don’t have hard numbers but it’s more than just the centrists on this board that feel this way. Andrew Cuomo and James Clyburn have talked about it in interviews.

The hostile-to-progressives man on TV said it to me so even though I don't have any evidence I believe it.

Quote

And it likely had an effect even in solidly blue districts although obviously not enough to impact the outcome; according  to this article Biden outperformed Omar in her district by >15 points  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/in-minnesota-and-beyond-defund-the-police-weighed-on-democrats-11605700803

Same as immediately above. No evidence, just the feelings of people who were already hostile to progressives. I don't care about the punditry of lifelong Democratic strategists.

Did Omar underperform Biden because of Defund? Did she underperform because her voters weren't motivated to show up because of Biden? Did she underperform because anti-Trump turnout was so high from people who never intended to vote downballot Dem in the first place? Did she underperform because right-wing groups poured tens of millions of dollars into attack ads against her specifically? Or because entire news networks smeared her with bigotry for years?

You don't know the answer to any of these questions, but you've got a narrative that values college educated paternalistic liberals over black street activists and that's ultimately what you want to promote so having answers doesn't matter.

Edited December 4, 2020 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13195]

A question for the centrists at large: What if you are wrong?

- What if "Reform the Police" doesn't resonate as meaning anything after decades of lifeless usage and people at large actually do read "Defund the Police" as "Dramatically Restructure Community Funding Away From Armed Cops Everywhere"?

- What if "Reform the Police" is taken to mean actually giving the police MORE money and MORE resources so they can #DoBetter? (for those that don't click the link, this is what Biden actually promotes)

[wildcat09 29349]

It's possible to believe that it's not the ideal slogan and also that much of the criticism of it is shit the Republicans would be saying about literally any other slogan, and that the efficacy of their use of activist slogans in attacks against Democratic candidates depends less on the slogan itself and more on the fact that Dems are fucking idiots who have no idea how to counter those attacks (regardless of the content of the attacks). I mean look at this shit:

 

There's no excuse for this.

[washparkhorn 9939]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Dems are fucking idiots who have no idea how to counter those attacks (regardless of the content of the attacks). I mean look at this shit:

 

There's no excuse for this.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45676]

39 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's possible to believe that it's not the ideal slogan and also that much of the criticism of it is shit the Republicans would be saying about literally any other slogan, and that the efficacy of their use of activist slogans in attacks against Democratic candidates depends less on the slogan itself and more on the fact that Dems are fucking idiots who have no idea how to counter those attacks (regardless of the content of the attacks). I mean look at this shit:

 

There's no excuse for this.

That's some fucking horseshit.  I donated to that campaign.  They should distribute that back out to all donors.

[bad_teammate 13195]

42 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's possible to believe that it's not the ideal slogan and also that much of the criticism of it is shit the Republicans would be saying about literally any other slogan, and that the efficacy of their use of activist slogans in attacks against Democratic candidates depends less on the slogan itself and more on the fact that Dems are fucking idiots who have no idea how to counter those attacks (regardless of the content of the attacks)

Sure, but if it were merely a question of "not ideal" we wouldn't be talking about it at all.

What's the motivator to single out Defund?

For instance, how much money did people on this board waste on MJ Hegar and her garbage campaign? That's real dollars out of many peoples' pockets (not mine, because I could smell this loser a mile away) and they aren't bothered in the least but are frothing at Defund.

Why?

The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.

[wildcat09 29349]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure, but if it were merely a question of "not ideal" we wouldn't be talking about it at all.

What's the motivator to single out Defund?

For instance, how much money did people on this board waste on MJ Hegar and her garbage campaign? That's real dollars out of many peoples' pockets (not mine, because I could smell this loser a mile away) and they aren't bothered in the least but are frothing at Defund.

Why?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.

 

Yeah that's why I try not to get involved with that debate at all. It's pointless and there isn't some magic perfect line that would suddenly win over tons of people. I think defund works just fine at establishing the goal of reducing police power. Even if the slogan is a weakness for Democratic candidates, that's a political problem they need to learn to fucking deal with.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

I think the problem people have, or better stated, the problem I have (and I'm curious to know if I am alone on this) is when you drill down into it, is that "Defund the Police" feels dishonest / deceptive. This is why I think LonghornMatt's genius takedown of BT was like ASMR tickling to a difficult to reach part of my brain.

"Defund the Police" allows people to talk out of both sides of their mouth because of the excuse, "well, sure.. some of the people marching (and are YOU marching? /scold /fingerwag) are meaning it to be literal and they want the entire police department to move out of their city and give their building to the homeless as a shelter but that's just because it was a grassroots, bottom-up slogan that is inherently nebulous and vague and organic and can't fit in your centrist hitler gas chamber box."

which then quickly becomes

"any toddler with a brain wrinkle can see that Defund the Police is just meant to convey a completely different meaning and trying to define it and standardize around a shared understanding and meaning for all, just is another example of how marginalizing the patriarchal white hegemonic murderers are like I've been saying!"

It's the Schrodinger cat of slogans, if physics had a stupid, short-term agenda.

People won't remember what you said as much as they remember what you made them feel, as the old axiom goes, so that emotional/feeling aspect is kind of important when it comes to sloganeering, I think.

If "Defund the Police'ers" have all the bad_teammates they need to affect results and politically get their way, then more power to them, I say. It's just the payback to the "F your feelings" they've been receiving.

Can't we just love one another?

Edited December 4, 2020 by DonkeyCigars