Defund the Police

[Willfully Horn 8039]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Will this be less prone to being either openly opposed by right-wingers

No. But the center might get behind it.

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This thread is alive and not because of Defund's proponents. Should tell you something.

Yes. It tells me that folks want something that moves society but aren’t sold on “defund.” But you knew that.

What that something will be? We will know it when we hear it, or experience it.

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Center talk

[TwiceHorn 31512]

48 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Flesh this thought out. Why did they support it?

And why is that relevant to what we're discussing right now?

Cool what's your suggestion?

 

 

The black pastors were afraid for their community in the face of the crack epidemic and thus supported a piece of legislation that was poorly thought out and draconian in terms of sentences and the 100x crack disparity and a host of new mandatory minimum sentencing.  It also vastly increased federal spending on local law enforcement with the specific goal of "hiring more cops."

So, without being cynical about the black pastors and other community leaders (and their possible ulterior motives) fear caused them to  support legislation that wound up further crushing their community, but in different ways.  Sex offender registries are another fear-driven bad policy.  There are dozens upon dozens of them, particularly in the federal CJ arena.  I can't tell you the last time the feds repealed a criminal law, other than trying to eliminate the 100x crack sentencing disparity, and they really pussyfooted around that one.

The whole issue of reducing police "presence" evokes fear among some people who are otherwise reasonable or sympathetic to progressive notions.

Defund the police plays right into that fear, and Republicans are masters at using it against progressive types.  

Alternatives?  Hell, I don't know, but you can come up with other verbs, like "Reform" to substitute for "defund," that aren't quite as evocative.

I'm all for a complete re-thinking of the criminal justice system, including police, but it's going to have to go somewhat slowly or carefully, lest you play into the hands of fearmongers.

[staboner 4984]

what about Protect and Serve....have we tried that one yet?

[bad_teammate 13220]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The whole issue of reducing police "presence" evokes fear among some people who are otherwise reasonable or sympathetic to progressive notions.

Still no idea how this connects to the '94 Crime Bill.

Are you saying that activists calling for Defund is going to lead centrists to support harsher policing? I do not follow you at all.

Democratic voting bases will largely just support whatever the Democratic Party elite throw out there for them. That was the case in '94 and that's still the case. Defund's popularity has fallen; which means at some point it WAS high. What killed that higher level of support? Was it the right-wing? No, it was the centrists and liberals within the Democratic base and power structure.

Quote

Defund the police plays right into that fear, and Republicans are masters at using it against progressive types. 

Read the thread. This isn't just "Republicans" being the masters of fear-mongering. For fuck's sake.

Quote

Alternatives?  Hell, I don't know, but you can come up with other verbs, like "Reform" to substitute for "defund," that aren't quite as evocative.

I'm all for a complete re-thinking of the criminal justice system, including police, but it's going to have to go somewhat slowly or carefully, lest you play into the hands of fearmongers.

We must wait for a more convenient season.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Still no idea how this connects to the '94 Crime Bill.

Are you saying that activists calling for Defund is going to lead centrists to support harsher policing? I do not follow you at all.

Democratic voting bases will largely just support whatever the Democratic Party elite throw out there for them. That was the case in '94 and that's still the case. Defund's popularity has fallen; which means at some point it WAS high. What killed that higher level of support? Was it the right-wing? No, it was the centrists and liberals within the Democratic base and power structure.

Read the thread. This isn't just "Republicans" being the masters of fear-mongering. For fuck's sake.

We must wait for a more convenient season.

I'm saying Defund the Police has a bad connotation for political purposes of reforming police.  It's therefore a rotten slogan if you have any interest in getting anything done.  

But you knew that.

Edited May 30, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13220]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm saying Defund the Police has a bad connotation for political purposes of reforming police.

1) Is "Defund the Police" a statement that exists "for political purposes"?
2) Is this based on objective fact and empirical evidence?

This has been stated a dozen times at least in this thread (click back to pages 13/14 or so, just remembering offhand), but "Defund the Police" isn't a political slogan. It isn't politicians coming up with this to try and get votes. It's citizens making a demand OF politicians.

The job of the politician is to respond to the demands of citizens.

So if a group of citizens are saying "DEFUND THE POLICE" the politician's job is to take that into account along with the other demands of their Democratic-voting constituents.

If your argument is that "Defund" scares white Republicans I think you're correct; just look at how hated it is here, in the land of white Republicans.

Edited May 30, 2021 by bad_teammate

[softlynow 1816]

8 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Or you could just educate yourself on what it means rather than counting on a slogan

I know what it means. Bad politics is tying the albatross of “you must educate” yourself around the neck of potentially popular ideas. The electorate is stupid, always has been, always will be. Recalibrate your marketing efforts to that fact. 

[bad_teammate 13220]

Pundits pundits everywhere, but not an original thought to read.

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, softlynow said:

I know what it means. Bad politics is tying the albatross of “you must educate” yourself around the neck of potentially popular ideas. The electorate is stupid, always has been, always will be. Recalibrate your marketing efforts to that fact. 

So what’s the answer then? Because the goal is to defund the police. So what’s the better slogan 

[softlynow 1816]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1) Is "Defund the Police" a statement that exists "for political purposes"?
2) Is this based on objective fact and empirical evidence?

This has been stated a dozen times at least in this thread (click back to pages 13/14 or so, just remembering offhand), but "Defund the Police" isn't a political slogan. It isn't politicians coming up with this to try and get votes. It's citizens making a demand OF politicians.

The job of the politician is to respond to the demands of citizens.

So if a group of citizens are saying "DEFUND THE POLICE" the politician's job is to take that into account along with the other demands of their Democratic-voting constituents.

If your argument is that "Defund" scares white Republicans I think you're correct; just look at how hated it is here, in the land of white Republicans.

It’s a statement that has failed to affect change. It didn’t spur discussion of its underlying ideas beyond the choir. The first step to progress is admitting failures. 

[hobbes2702 13049]

1 minute ago, softlynow said:

It’s a statement that has failed to affect change. It didn’t spur discussion of its underlying ideas beyond the choir. The first step to progress is admitting failures. 

It didn’t effect change? Where have you been this year? It didn’t spurn discussion? How many pages is this thread?

Edited May 30, 2021 by hobbes2702

[bad_teammate 13220]

5 minutes ago, softlynow said:

It’s a statement that has failed to affect change.

1) This isn't true.
2) It's been what... a year?

Quote

It didn’t spur discussion of its underlying ideas beyond the choir.

You're an opponent of it talking about it in a thread constantly resurrected by its opponents who want to talk about it.

"NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS!" - People who constantly talk about it

[bad_teammate 13220]

Guys it hasn't resulted in a total adoption of its goal in 9 months it's time to acknowledge it is a complete failure unlike my idea which is uhhh... hey look over there.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1) Is "Defund the Police" a statement that exists "for political purposes"?
2) Is this based on objective fact and empirical evidence?

This has been stated a dozen times at least in this thread (click back to pages 13/14 or so, just remembering offhand), but "Defund the Police" isn't a political slogan. It isn't politicians coming up with this to try and get votes. It's citizens making a demand OF politicians.

The job of the politician is to respond to the demands of citizens.

So if a group of citizens are saying "DEFUND THE POLICE" the politician's job is to take that into account along with the other demands of their Democratic-voting constituents.

If your argument is that "Defund" scares white Republicans I think you're correct; just look at how hated it is here, in the land of white Republicans.

Your parsing machine parses finer than mine.

You can demand that politicians fuck your mother.   But if you want politicians to act on your demand, you're going to need to build some kind of consensus about it.  So whether it is technically a political slogan, it's not a good slogan around which to build consensus, for politicians or anyone other than bomb throwers like you.

And I think it's unwise to underestimate the number of people outside of "white Republicans" that may ultimately fear a reduction in police and certainly would not be in favor of complete abolition of police, but would be all-in on various reforms.  There is a shit ton of people that are not capable of thinking outside of the punitive box.

 

[bad_teammate 13220]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

So whether it is technically a political slogan, it's not a good slogan around which to build consensus, for politicians or anyone other than bomb throwers like you.

It is not the job of individual parties within a constituency to build consensus, it's the job of political leaders to do that. That is the entire god damned point of political parties. To unite interests, often competing, into a bloc for power.

The last fucking thing white centrists need to be doing right now is offering sub-MSNBC punditry takes regarding black-centered/led movements for social/economic/criminal justice.

Quote

And I think it's unwise to underestimate the number of people outside of "white Republicans" that may ultimately fear a reduction in police and certainly would not be in favor of complete abolition of police, but would be all-in on various reforms.  There is a shit ton of people that are not capable of thinking outside of the punitive box.

Great, where are they and what are they doing?

If they're asleep to the issue, how do we wake them up? What do we say or do?

[GW Hayduke 1953]

[UpperWestside 6172]

23 minutes ago, softlynow said:

It’s a statement that has failed to affect change. It didn’t spur discussion of its underlying ideas beyond the choir. The first step to progress is admitting failures. 

If less than a year to enact change is a failure I would like to ask you this question. Would you then also consider the Civil Rights Movement a failure? 

[Anastasis 23480]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Still no one has offered any alternative to "defund".

“Disarm” would be a good start. 

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, UpperWestside said:

If less than a year to enact change is a failure I would like to ask you this question. Would you then also consider the Civil Rights Movement a failure? 

That’s also bullshit since multiple major cities have defunded their police. It has absolutely effected change

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, Anastasis said:

“Disarm” would be a good start. 

I’m on board with that but I think it likely faces the exact same problems defund does 

[bad_teammate 13220]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’m on board with that but I think it likely faces the exact same problems defund does 

If a bunch of black people on the street started with "DISARM THE POLICE" on signs this thread would be exactly the same with a Find/Replace.

"Well you see I feel what they are saying and sympathize with them, but many of the people in my cul de sac are nervous about the idea of policemen not having guns. I just think they need to come up with a better slogan to win over my friends but definitely not me I'm totally an ally!!!"

 

[Nivek 16948]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Bet your fur.

so many questions....

[UpperWestside 6172]

15 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

That’s also bullshit since multiple major cities have defunded their police. It has absolutely effected change

I absolutely believe it has effected change in the ways and amounts that police departments are funded. I just wanted to know what that poster thought. I want to see fewer police officers and more psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists on staff in every police department across the country. 

[TwiceHorn 31512]

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It is not the job of individual parties within a constituency to build consensus, it's the job of political leaders to do that. That is the entire god damned point of political parties. To unite interests, often competing, into a bloc for power.

The last fucking thing white centrists need to be doing right now is offering sub-MSNBC punditry takes regarding black-centered/led movements for social/economic/criminal justice.

Great, where are they and what are they doing?

If they're asleep to the issue, how do we wake them up? What do we say or do?

Don't hit em with "abolish the police" or "defund the police."

There are certainly a ton of people that are receptive to ideas about reforming police, but they're not deep thinkers, you have to gently clout them upside the head with ideas that police do a lot of jobs they aren't qualified to do, and people get hurt because of it.  They also have a militaristic culture in which they treat vast swaths of the citizenry as the enemy rather than those they protect and serve.

And I think I disagree with your fundamental notion of consensus building, although it's technically correct.

If this is to be a populist movement to which politicians must respond, then it must actually be a popular idea.  Popular indicates some degree of consensus.

Certainly, there are politicians that can look behind labels and see the sense behind an idea.  They tend also to represent constituencies capable of the same thing.  

Lawnorder and toughoncrime have been useful political positions for politicians of all stripes because it is popular with their constituencies, it always gets them votes or at least doesn't lose them many.  I think they need to hear from their constituencies that something that doesn't quite fit with lawnorder is what they demand before they take that political risk.

The First Step Act had a lot of bipartisan support going back to the Obama administration.  But party leaders of both sides were afraid to take the risk even though there were pretty clear majorities in both houses and a lot of popular support.  It finally took that craven bastard's desperate desire to cultivate the black vote to bring it to fruition. Crime and related issues can be a third rail.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31512]

6 minutes ago, Nivek said:

so many questions....

Ask Stephen King.

[Zepol87 9188]

23 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’m on board with that but I think it likely faces the exact same problems defund does 

It does and won't help. It doesn't matter what the slogan is imo, the fact that everyone is arguing about that over the real issues won't change 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

 

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Still no one has offered any alternative to "defund".

Just fly-by concern troll shitting on people doing real and important work.

 

I have been saying since this time last year that "Reimagine Public Safety" is a far better slogan. 

 

1 hour ago, staboner said:

what about Protect and Serve....have we tried that one yet?

Agreed. And something might have changed when cops stopped thinking of themselves or referring to themselves as "peace officers" but rather "LAW ENFORCEMENT officers."

Protection, service, peace...these are pussy words. 

Law enforcement, on the other hand, now that's a phrase that will appeal to bullies and assholes. 

[TwiceHorn 31512]

Just now, MaybeACoordinator said:

 

 

I have been saying since this time last year that "Reimagine Public Safety" is a far better slogan. 

 

Agreed. And something might have changed when cops stopped thinking of themselves or referring to themselves as "peace officers" but rather "LAW ENFORCEMENT officers."

Protection, service, peace...these are pussy words. 

Law enforcement, on the other hand, now that's a phrase that will appeal to bullies and assholes. 

I agree on reimagine.  Rethink.  Reform is kind of blunt, but it at minimum doesn't carry what many will perceive as a negative connotation.  It makes the dummies say "whaddaya mean reimagine, splain."

[TwiceHorn 31512]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

It’s a statement that has failed to affect change. It didn’t spur discussion of its underlying ideas beyond the choir. The first step to progress is admitting failures. 

I don't think it's a complete failure.  A number of places have effected changes.  But, it hasn't gained the traction it deserves in part, I think, because it's too easily characterized as a radical, fringey idea.

[hobbes2702 13049]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I agree on reimagine.  Rethink.  Reform is kind of blunt, but it at minimum doesn't carry what many will perceive as a negative connotation.  It makes the dummies say "whaddaya mean reimagine, splain."

So it still needs to be explained. Then we are in the exact same position we are now 

[TwiceHorn 31512]

16 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So it still needs to be explained. Then we are in the exact same position we are now 

An explanation is fine.

An explanation to avoid a negative connotation is not fine.

Regardless, this is getting to be fucking stupid.  I'm out.

Edited May 31, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13220]

The nervous centrist punditbrain who opposes movement is a tool of the fascist white supremacist, nothing more and nothing less. A tool with a furrowed-brow and wringed-hands, but a tool nonetheless.

Support for the redistribution of money was also divided by the race of voters. Sixty-three percent of Black voters support distributing portions of police funds to social programs, while 35% of white voters do. Most white voters surveyed supported fully funding the police: 65% say police budgets should remain the same compared, with 37% of Black voters.

This is a racial issue. Pick a side. Most of you side with the racist Republicans, and that should bother you.

[Willfully Horn 8039]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

The nervous centrist punditbrain who opposes movement is a tool of the fascist white supremacist, nothing more and nothing less.

Huh. Who’s doing that and how are they doing it?

[TwiceHorn 31512]

Just now, Willfully Horn said:

Huh. Who’s doing that and how are they doing it?

I'm sure he's talking about me.

Of course, I am not at all opposed to actually defunding police.  While I agree with b_t that almost all crime is some form of societal failure that is at least theoretically avoidable with better social systems, I don't think actual abolition of police is workable.

I love the idea of disarming police and have said so for years.  It won't happen in my lifetime, I'm pretty positive.

I've been eyeballing criminal justice reform pretty hard for a decade, and obvious and correct solutions get no traction in the political class or even among other than affected and interested non-political class, because crime and related subjects are politically dangerous for politicians.

Edited May 31, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13220]

Not just you, darling. Also, I thought you were out. Weird.

It's a pretty simple equation. Is your position here supportive of Defund activists or their opponents? It's a simple thing, really.

[Willfully Horn 8039]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm sure he's talking about me.

I am impressed with your ability to sway the events of the world. Please use your power for good.

[Willfully Horn 8039]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not just you, darling. Also, I thought you were out. Weird.

It's a pretty simple equation. Is your position here supportive of Defund activists or their opponents? It's a simple thing, really.

I support the Texas Longhorns and grind my teeth when they don’t score.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Word choice

[hobbes2702 13049]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

An explanation is fine.

An explanation to avoid a negative connotation is not fine.

Regardless, this is getting to be fucking stupid.  I'm out.

Do you think someone who is unwilling to learn what “defund the police” means is going to agree with the explanation of “reimagine public safety” if both those slogans mean the same thing? 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

"Defund the police!" reminds me of the comments I'd read on Jezebel stories during the Summer of Rape Culture on College Campuses a few years back. There would be discussions going on how to mitigate the problem (for me, education on extreme binge drinking would do wonders for both men and women) and then invariably someone would come on and say YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN? REALLY? MEN NEED TO STOP RAPING WOMEN. And for too many that would be the mic drop moment. 

Yes, it would be fantastic if men stopped raping women. It would also be great if there was no racism, or war, or politically-induced famines, or robbery, or (name the human sins that are as old as the human race). Or if men would stop raping men in prison. Or if we had no prisons at all, and the reason we had no prisons was because we had no cops, and the reason we had no cops was because we had no crime...Now, how do we get to this place where we have no crime, and thereby no need for cops or prisons? Because we are not there right now, not anywhere close. 

[bad_teammate 13220]

6 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

"Defund the police!" reminds me of the comments I'd read on Jezebel stories during the Summer of Rape Culture on College Campuses a few years back. There would be discussions going on how to mitigate the problem (for me, education on extreme binge drinking would do wonders for both men and women) and then invariably someone would come on and say YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN? REALLY? MEN NEED TO STOP RAPING WOMEN. And for too many that would be the mic drop moment. 

Yes, it would be fantastic if men stopped raping women. It would also be great if there was no racism, or war, or politically-induced famines, or robbery, or (name the human sins that are as old as the human race). Or if men would stop raping men in prison. Or if we had no prisons at all, and the reason we had no prisons was because we had no cops, and the reason we had no cops was because we had no crime...Now, how do we get to this place where we have no crime, and thereby no need for cops or prisons? Because we are not there right now, not anywhere close. 

This entire post is a wonderful example of someone who knows nothing about the thing they're commenting so confidently on.

White centrists are acting like black activists are fucking morons who haven't been thinking this through since the 1960s. All because those same white centrists haven't thought about any of this ever, so they assume no one else has.

Maybe listen and learn.

 

 

If you believe that these black activists think crime is going to disappear entirely you seriously need to examine your internal prejudices.

Edited May 31, 2021 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13220]

That Angela Davis interview should be particularly embarrassing to our Blue MAGA fellows.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

I am arguing the slogan, and how to sell it to White people, primarily, and I have heard "Reimagine Public Safety" from the mouths of Black activists as well. 

 

Like here. 

And here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

 

[bad_teammate 13220]

I love Reimagine Public Safety. Sounds great. Let's do it.

Question: Has that slogan been more effective on the ground than defund?
 

[HenryJames 66135]

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

On 5/30/2021 at 6:45 PM, bad_teammate said:

Pundits pundits everywhere, but not an original thought to read.

Reform the police.  There’s your fucking slogan.

Don’t over complicate shit when most of the voting public are brain dead morons.

[bad_teammate 13220]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Reform the police.  There’s your fucking slogan.

The goal isn't to increase police funding so no, that's not the fucking slogan.

[hobbes2702 13049]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Reform the police.  There’s your fucking slogan.

Don’t over complicate shit when most of the voting public are brain dead morons.

That’s been the slogan for 3 decades as police get more militarized, more violent, and less accountable. Maybe time for something new

[elfenix 34330]

more spending doesn't equal less crime:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/07/over-past-60-years-more-spending-police-hasnt-necessarily-meant-less-crime/

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

The goal isn't to increase police funding so no, that's not the fucking slogan.

Fake news.

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

That’s been the slogan for 3 decades

This is bullshit.