Right, and that would be why what I said of reallocating resources. That doesn’t mean decreasing, and in fact, often means increasing, especially on training.
But it also means increase in social services and programs, with the long term goal of having a need for fewer police.
This is why a 3 word slogan should not be what people turn to and insist on when they make policy.
He shouldn’t say he’s for or against defunding the police. He should refer to his actual policy without acknowledging the slogan, because taking a position on the slogan allows part of his coalition to rally against him on that issue.
I think almost anyone who is using the “defund” slogan hates Biden and are only going to vote for him or abstain depending on if they recognize the tactical value in voting for him.
It’s the large swaths of voters who only hear slogans. There are too many of them who are only going to find out Biden’s position on the actual policy based on if he comes out with a statement on the slogan itself, and either will never know or will find a way to explain it away if he pivots. There are also too many people who disagree with “defund” but wouldn’t want him to sow division in the movement (I’m frankly one of those people even I realize it would be moronic not to vote for him regardless).
Biden wants to increase funding the the police themselves - perhaps in addition to other social services, but generally the reallocators want to take money from the police budget and use them for the social services. It’s different.
Screening and training and getting rid of problem officers and holding them to account for their actions are very much the ideas behind that 3 word phrase that everyone is obsessing over.
To insist that it is the opposite is to entirely misunderstand the point of the movement.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone is referring to it as “defund” unless it’s about actually cutting overall funding to the police and possibly increasing it on social services at whatnot. This may increase funding of crime prevention overall, but it’s not just cut 5% to take away their urban assault vehicles and add 10% for training.
If I’m wrong about that, the term really is actively dishonest and not just slippery.
And that is a debate that will be had at federal, state, and local levels. It is hard for the federal level to tell a city what their optimal police vs social services should be. But, it should be acceptable for the federal level to give some guidelines and financial assistance in helping them to achieve that.
It’s an ideal, not a policy.
It is only dishonest to those who need it to be something that it is not.
In the long run, yes, that is how it could and optimally should work out.
In the short run, getting from here to there, will probably involve spending more on the police departments
The average person doesn’t give a damn about the point of the movement.
They understand what a budget is. They understand what defunding means. They understand what re-allocation means. They’ve lost jobs due to both. They’ve had to use the terms in their personal financing. When they hear people say that “defund” doesn’t mean what it means of that “reallocate sometimes means increase”, they know they are being fucked with. Mean what you say and say what you mean. Transform the Police accomplishes that without trickery and changing the meaning of words they know.
Okay, this is about as useful as arguing that literally should not mean figuratively.
You are complaining about a viral phenomena, one that came about because of very obvious and blatant mistreatment by police to the public that they are supposed to protect.
You want what? Biden to forbid the use of the word? Demand that people stop using it? No one has even given anything that it is that they want from anyone, other than that protesters, who no one actually has control over, should stop using it, which most have at this point.
I mean, lets just say that somehow all the people who really want to see police reform stop using it right now. We already have agitators who are willing to commit violence and arson in order to discredit the movement, you don’t think that they would carry a defund the police sign,t to make people like you feel uncomfortable about supporting them?
It’s just a complaint, an excuse, a pointless exercise in complaining that others are doing something that you don’t like.
Anyway, I need to start getting some of my paperwork here, or I’ll be here all night. And I need to get away from this conversation, as I need to stop trying to use my skull to drive nails into walls.
They don’t need to. It’s already been done for them.
Oh, so you are saying that even if every protester stopped using the slogan, you would still be against the movement because they used to use it?
Then what good is there in trying to pander to you, when you have already said that there is nothing that can be done to make you stop feeling uncomfortable about other people’s words?
If you are against the movement, then you have no reason to criticize the messaging of it, you are simply against it, and there is absolutely no reason why anyone in it should listen to anything that you have to say.
ETA: this nail is almost in, wham wham wham
I don’t need to be convinced of anything. I think it’s incredibly stupid terminology and Democratic leadership agrees with me. What I want is for people like you to stop using it because it’s deceptive in nature and will lead (some) people to believe it aims to accomplish that which it will not. And that will have knock on consequences of reducing trust and driving progressives into the arms of anarchists.
Also words have meaning. Every time someone uses the word “literally” to mean “figuratively” a butterfly dies, and the very next post makes fun of them for abuse of hyperbole.
What shall we hang here?
On the left, Defund the Police is very much alive and we mean it. We in the DSA are still chanting it in our protests. It means exactly what it says: Take money away from police departments and reallocate them to social services and reducing the socioeconomic causes of crime. It could be considered incomplete in that respect, but it isn’t inaccurate. The problem comes when right-wingers try to distort it to fit their own interpretation, which will happen regardless of which slogan we choose to use. And to be honest, I don’t care how this affects the Dems in the polls, since this is an issue that goes beyond the election.
Will you feel pandered to if the Democratic party adopts the slogan for political expediency but actually increases funding to the police? This may lead to increase in police salaries, increase in neighborhood policing, improved training, additional tools and specialized personnel trained in de-escalation, things of that nature.
What will be your response to that outcome in the subsequent elections?
I personally still view “defund” as a slogan that is supposed to sound anarchic, but that’s an opinion that I couldn’t possibly provide a cite for, so I’ll move on from that.
Regardless of the intent and meaning behind the slogan, it’s not in Biden’s lane to support or oppose it. He’s not aligned with leftists who popularized and has brought even center right people into his umbrella who actively hate the term. This means it would be stupid for him to now take a position on it, and making the term more prominent has no chance of helping him.
I think it’s a completely defensible position to say you care more about the power of the slogan than the impact it has on this election, and I hope everyone else who supports it is intellectually honest enough to make this distinction. Honestly I think most do because almost all of them hate Biden anyway.
Absolutely! I’m already worried about what Biden will do since he has already stated he wants to increase funding to police departments, of course having Trump as President another 4 years isn’t an option either. Like with all police funding, the local politicians and unions will make sure that money will go towards more methods to oppress and brutalize people. And if Biden doesn’t get on board with us, we will fight against him just as hard as we’ve been fighting Trump. At least Biden would be much more resistant to sicking Federal troops on us just for demonstrating our right to protest.
In the DSA we actually have anarchists who support Abolish the Police instead and they tend to view our goals as too moderate. Ideally I support abolishment too, if we ever got our society to that point, but that’s much more utopian right now. I think “Defund” is a good compromise.
“Defund the police” doesn’t have a set meaning. Some use it to mean “reallocate money and reform the police.” Others—progressives, not right-wing fearmongers—mean “destroy the police.” cite
Biden will say that directly at some point, and he’ll say it in a tone that indicates it’s a ridiculous assertion. Pre-surrogates and many others already have.