The typical and by far the most frequent usage is a complete stop. So much so that news reports in the past about defunding planned parenthood and things like that don’t even qualify or explain because it is the default usage.
Some are, my initial investigation found multiple places where they clarified by using the term “abolish”
I believe there was a poster recently on the SDMB with that position (something “mike” or "mike something I think).
Let’s look at the definitions I’ve encountered:
1 - Abolish
2 - 96% (approx), or just call it cut budget almost completely
3 - 50% (Seattle)
4 - Some nebulous non-percentage, non-hard number with description of “shift some funds to…”
The goals and definitions are not consistent.
…prove it. That isn’t how I or people around me typically use it at all. It isn’t the standard dictionary term. And even if it was you know better now.
This is anecdotal and in no way convincing. But even if it was true then you know better now and should stop conflating the two.
Cite please.
Some random poster whose name may or may not have been mike wanted to abolish the police? And you want me to care about that?
Well no fucking shit. #metoo initially had no initial goals and definitions were not consistent. Black Lives Matters started life as just three words, it still means different things to different people, the goals and definitions are not consistent. What the fuck are you expecting from a decentralised populous movement?
There is a movement to abolish the police. That movement is centred around the phrasing “abolish the police” and can easily be distinguished from those that simply want to “defund the police.” This isn’t really very hard to understand.
Yes, Democratic leaders and most people who want to 'defund the police" agree it doesnt mean 'eliminate. But there are some loud voices calling for just that. Are you saying your definition is right and they are wrong?
He is literally right.
And those people who are advocating for “defund the police” have pretty much each defined it differently, from cutting the fat to eliminating all police.
And that is why it is a crappy slogan. It can mean anything people want it to mean.
Look, when the ACLU and the WaPo both agree it’s a crappy slogan that is helping trump get re-elected, and when the ACLU offers up a much better one, why do you cling to the slogan that is doing the exact opposite of what you want? Defund is helping trump get elected and other republicans, which means not only wont the police get “defunded” but the exact opposite.
Ok, you win, the dictionaries are all wrong.
My point was that it is a poor phrase to use if the goal is to try to sway the “swayable” portion of the public.
I investigated and many of the ideas I read made sense. But it seems the general public does not typically seek out information like that. Which means they will react based on the typical usage of the term and be turned away from it.
Here’s some data:
…I’m saying those calling to “abolish the police” are calling to “abolish the police”, and those calling to “defund the police” are calling to “defund the police.”
I think you meant to say “subjectively” rather than “literally” there.
The ACLU defend Nazi’s and the WaPo aren’t an authority and if they think something is crappy then they are entitled to their opinion but why should I give a fuck?
Don’t go there. Defund is not helping to get Trump elected. Don’t put that responsibility on me, and don’t put that responsibility on the most marginalised who are fighting for their lives. If Trump get re-elected then blame the people who voted for Trump.
Actions have reactions. You can’t prevent that with phrases like “don’t put that on me”. It’s going to happen whether you want it to or not.
Most people recognize that and try to optimize their actions to get the reactions that helps support their goals.
I do not know if this means you can shoot them if they come at you but I think it suggests a person might. It is not lost on me that if you tried you would almost certainly be gunned down on the spot by these government thugs. Nevertheless, it illustrates the issue at the least.
From the legal complaint filed by the Oregon attorney general vs various US organizations:
On information and belief, John Does 1-10 are employed by the United States government in a law enforcement capacity. They have made it impossible for them to be individually identified by carrying out law enforcement actions without wearing any identifying information, even so much as the agency that employs them.
<snip>
Ordinarily, a person exercising his right to walk through the streets of Portland who is
confronted by anonymous men in military-type fatigues and ordered into an unmarked van can
reasonably assume that he is being kidnapped and is the victim of a crime. SOURCE
…I’m the only person here who provided a source for my dictionary quote.
People argued passionately that “Black Lives Matters” was a poor phrase to use if the goal way to try and sway the ‘swayable’ portion of the public. “All Lives Matters” was better. More inclusive. Less threatening. More defined. Will sway more people. Do you agree with those people? Should we drop “Black Lives Matters” for “All Lives Matters” simply because that would be more appealing to those that don’t want to delve deeper into the topic?
Except the goal isn’t “to sway the unswayable.” The goal is to “defund the police.” So those statistics aren’t relevant.
People aren’t going to vote for Trump because somebody said “defund the police.” They were always going to vote for Trump, but they will use “defund the police” as a shield for their decisions. Don’t let them do that. Their vote is their responsibility and not a result of my actions.
Supporting “Black Lives Matters” will invariably cause people to vote for Trump. But that isn’t my fault, not my responsibility, and I refuse to “optimize my reactions” for the statistically unlikely probability that maybe somebody might possibly change their minds.
[
](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html)
Jun 12, 2020 - Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police . Because reform won’t happen. By Mariame Kaba. Ms. Kaba is an organizer against criminalization.
There will be some variation here among proponents of the position, but I feel that it is worthwhile to have some advocate for completely eliminating the institution and then re-creating something that is deemed to be more just and humane. Seven different definitions of what "defund the Police’ really means.
# Defund the Police’ Is a Bad Slogan, but Some Aspects Are Worth Considering
As a branding idea, “Defund the Police” may be the worst slogan since New Coke, but as a policy matter, it is something most California communities should consider.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/22/democrats-should-steer-clear-defunding-police/# Democrats should steer clear of ‘defunding the police’
## The phrase polls terribly, and it hands Republicans a weapon… And “defunding the police” does not make sense to the broader public. Just 1 in 3 Americans… “defunding the police,” according to an ABC News-Ipsos poll. That number rises to 39 percent only when the question specifies that any reduction in funding go toward mental health programs, housing or other social programs. (If you have to explain a slogan, it isn’t conveying what you mean.)
Trump and Republicans wasted no time branding the movement to defund police departments as “consuming” the Democratic Party… They will no doubt turn this into a central campaign meme in swing states that neighbor Minnesota, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, which gave Trump his narrow electoral college victory in 2016 and are crucial to defeating him in 2020."
Let me repeat that and bold it: If you have to explain a slogan, it isn’t conveying what you mean
…bolding it doesn’t mean you have a point.
Black Lives Matters needed to be explained. “Coke is it” doesn’t explain exactly what “Coke is.” “Just do it” doesn’t explain what “it” is.
I said sway the “swayable” portion of the public (the “unswayable”, by definition, will not be swayed by the phrasing of your message).
Most changes that involve significant amounts of tax money, and that involve significant departments like the police, will require the public’s support at some point. For example, I believe the MN city council is adding it to the ballot in November. For something like that to pass, you need to have a significant percentage of the voters behind it.
You must not be watching any of the live streams with the so-called peaceful protesters throwing explosives, bottles, shining powerful lasers, setting fires and wrecking the area. Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed but I can guarantee that you’d have no freedom of speech near that violent mob.
Peaceful looting, peaceful arson, and peaceful hate crimes sort of means using peaceful or of peace as a descriptor is nothing but double speech.
What the actual f*ck are you watching?
…so do you want it to pass? Then get out there and support it. I’m not seeing the issue here? What stops you for publicly advocating for adding something onto the ballot?
The goal of “defund the police” is to get things like this onto the ballot. They’ve achieved that goal here. Do you want it to pass? You can’t put the responsibility on a marginalised few to do all the work. If they were to change their slogan what are you going to do differently? Are you not going to vote for Trump? Are you going to actively campaign to get this passed but if they don’t change the slogan you won’t? Do you support the initiative or not?
Then don’t say “defund/abolish the police” when trying to sway them.
I have long said that any policy that fits on a bumper sticker is by definition a bad one.
And that’s the whole thing, it’s not a policy, it’s a motivating cry. It calls out to people who want to stop the brutality perpetuated by the police to stand up and work for that goal.
“Divest and Re-invest” doesn’t have nearly the same feel too it, does it? “Reevaluate and reallocate”?
Slogans and activist names do not need to be completely descriptive, nor even follow the dictionary definition. Do pro-life groups protest executions? Do pro-choice groups advocate for electricity deregulation?
Do you really think that Tippecanoe and Tyler too! didn’t need to be explained to anyone?
In a previous thread, the question was raised as to what “defund the police” meant. I responded with a 6200 character essay (had to divide into 2 parts), to which the response was essentially, “That’s not what the dictionary says.”
The whole point of a slogan is to make you ask what it means. If it is explained what it means, and you refuse to accept that explanation, then I don’t really think the failure of communication comes from the person trying to enlighten the other.
Now, earlier, you said that defund the police lost you. I took that to mean that you were lessening or even removing your support for the movement due to the slogan. You have explained otherwise, but I will repeat what I said, but with a royal you.
If you blame a slogan as the reason to not support a movement, then you were looking for a reason to not support that movement.
Here on a messagboard, I don’t think that we are likely to sway any voters, and so, I don’t think that messaging or tone is worth discussing, as relates to the discussions on this messagebaord.
If you are talking about how to recruit allies to the cause, then I absolutely agree, chanting “Abolish the Police” at them is not going to be productive. But, you don’t even have to use those words. Explain instead what the goals of the movement are, both in general terms and with some specific examples.
But, if you are trying to get a bunch of people who are already on board to get off their asses and go stand in the heat and humidity wearing masks and being shot at, then a more pithy, even if not 100% accurate, slogan may be better for that motivation.
I do think that it would be far more productive explaining to people who want to know what defund the police means than to get thousands of angry people to take up a new and far less pithy slogan.
And I reiterate. Anyone who says that they will not support the cause due to the slogans of protesters was looking for a rationalization to not support the cause. They are not being pushed away, they were never potential allies in the first place. Anyone who responds to an explanation as to what defund the police means claiming that it is not the only possible dictionary definition is also not looking to understand what it is all about.
maybe this?
I’m not in MN, I live outside of Seattle city boundaries, so the Seattle cut only impacts me indirectly (I work there) but I can’t vote for the council or mayor.
I don’t agree with a 50% cut that isn’t supported by data and my gut feel is that is too big of a cut to reasonably support policing the level of criminal activity in the city (burglary, assault, theft, etc.). I do agree with shifting the non-criminal activities to non-police responders, but the actual dollar amount that should be sent one direction or the other should be based on analysis of actual data and what it costs to reasonably support the activities.
My actions for this and any other issue typically involves:
1 - Gathering information so I have a good understanding of the issue
2 - Voting based on #1
…so in other words changing the slogan isn’t going to materially make a difference to anything that you plan to do.
From the data that I’ve seen (third hand, mostly, so no cite, but I’m happy to be corrected with better data) far less than 50% of what police do is responding to actual criminal activity.
If that funding was moved to more appropriate services, it could improve the community and save money too.
Then there is the matter of “proactive policing”, where you are looking for crime, rather than just responding to reports of it. When you are looking for crime, everyone looks like a criminal. That is an activity that I would not mind seeing entirely defunded, and if needed, replaced with neighborhood watch programs.