You just go by the headline?
The point of that article was not to say to get rid of the police, but to get rid of the need for police. And then get rid of the police.
Try reading past the headline next time. Especially if you are trying to use an article to try to score some sort of point.
TYIA
Where do you get the impression that they want to get rid of the need for police AND THEN get rid of the police. This article seems to think these two events should at BEST happen contemporaneously.
Reread that sentence. It literally says they want to abolish the police… and do some other stuff that will make the police unnecessary. And that’s the sentence that best supports your position in the entire article.
“I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.”
The “defund the police” movement started out as an abolitionist movement. It didn’t gain the nuance until people started redefining words because the original meaning of the words was nucking futz. Once you say its OK redefine words after your words become unpopular, there is no accountability.
The “defund the police” movement started as an abolitionist movement. It has since morphed into a more palatable “reform the police” movement but as the article makes clear, the “defund the police” movement does not believe that reform is possible.
Your reluctance to turn your back on the crazies on the left is going to drag down the movement against craziness from the right. You are turning this into a choice between antifa and the kkk when it’s really a choice between a somewhat boringly normal joe biden and the worst president in my lifetime.
This political calculus that we can drag the party waaaaay to the left because the alternative is something even worse to the right is playing with fire.
I had no idea that my words on this messagebaord had so much power.
My point was that you are being very simplistic and superficial, and that the idea of just dismantling the police entirely is not something that anyone is actually advocating for, and for the things that are close to such a proposition, there is more than enough nuance that makes a big difference.
No, that would be the kind of binary thinking that someone would use when they want to use a headline to score internet points.
That is not what they are doing. They are asking for their neighborhoods to no longer be terrorized and brutalized by the agents of the state.
If that’s a far left ask, then the alternative is far worse.
Firefighters choose not to make entry for rescue or extinguishing attempts all the time. Probably hundreds of times more often than a police officer kills someone.
Of course, if they are as timely as you are on this comeback, the structure is burned to the ground and rebuilt by now.
Anyway, you are saying that firefighters never enter a burning building? If not, then you are not usefully responding to the post you have responded to. If so, then you are simply incorrect.