They originally meant “remove all funding” which is why you would see this intermixed with “abolish the police”. It was an initial emotional overreaction that they’re trying to walk back. It would even be understandable (indeed, commendable) if they simply said, “we reacted emotionally to some troubling videos; we regret advocating for the abolition of police altogether, but we do want to see these other, more moderate reforms”. Instead you have some people doubling down i.e., “no, we actually meant ‘abolish the police’” and others who are cringingly pretending that “abolish the police” was some sort of metaphor. Both camps are more preoccupied with appearing to be correct than with actually being correct. Of course, someone will inevitably try to deflect to the errors of some other group, as though no one can be criticized except the worst group, which is the kind of race-to-the-bottom thinking that landed us here in the first place.
> “we reacted emotionally to some troubling videos; we regret advocating for the abolition of police altogether, but we do want to see these other, more moderate reforms”
Have you ever participated in politics? Because even in a small town government meeting, a board member stating they are changing their view because they "reacted emotionally" initially is going to immediately be followed by a call for them to resign.
I'm not opining on the issue at hand. It's just that when I read the suggestions here on HN about political messaging, many of them don't line up with any political reality I'm familiar with.
Even still, the appropriate response isn’t to double down or lie. If you don’t like those options, consider your response before expressing it in the first place. I agree that we should normalize honesty though.
> The problem is that "defund" means remove all funding. So these people are playing word games.
You have to that with slogans. They're low resolution, so there's an inevitable loss of fidelity. No one marches with a legislative proposal on a placard, and it would be unreasonable to do so.
IIRC, "defund the police" grew out of frustration with various police reform efforts that failed to address these problems [1]. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to take up the slogan of one of the things you're opposing.
[1] For instance I watch a video of some police deescalation training (in Seattle, IIRC), where the rank-and-file were talking back and not taking it seriously, and the instructors were not very enthusiastic or in control. I can't imagine that reform effort did a lot of good.
It's not accurate, unfortunately. Reform is as ambiguous as defund. Do you mean totally eradicate and then reform a department? Or do you mean just telling them "do better"? Are you talking about re-forming the police or reforms for police?
Better in some ways, worse in others. It avoids the confusion with abolishment, but it looses the connotations of seriously changing the status quo. Because of that, it's less attention-grabbing.
That's a poor excuse. They're low resolution, but not so low resolution that you can chant a slogan and then claim you meant something else entirely. Why not "reform the police", or hell, even "disarm the police"?
Do you think "disarm the police" would be going better than "defund the police"?
(I suspect it would actually be quite a bit more incendiary.)
Communication (even at length) is hard. We all bring different baggage to every attempt to speak and listen. It's probably ~impossible once you mix in uncharitable readers/listeners.
I can't speak for the campaigners, but I suspect "reform the police" won't cut the mustard for them because it's the sort of thing the establishment says before it fails to deliver meaningful change. "Today I'm calling for the establishment of a bipartisan commission on police reform", and its short imperative slogan--"reform the police"--could be an inspiring message if people had the impression that is how the gears sound when they're spinning up to change something.
But it's not very fair to insist people should be chanting a demand that seems to translate to "promise to look busy for a few months so that we'll go home and hope we don't notice when you don't solve the problem."
"Reform the police" has long been the tagline for ineffective measures. We've been trying to do it for decades; "defund the police" is in part a response to the reform argument.
"Disarm the police" would receive the exact same pearl clutching responses.
I'm not sure how either of these articles support your point.
Your first article is someone criticizing prior efforts by others to reduce public education funding. The only person using the word "defund" is the author. Though interestingly, there is a mention of conservative attacks on programs like sociology, anthropology, minority studies, and gender studies. I assure you that many conservatives really do want to abolish funding for those programs.
The second article is a single person using the word "defund" to describe Obama's reduction of military spending. Again, somebody using the word to describe somebody else's actions.
Interestingly, both of those articles are by people who oppose defunding. Perhaps they used that word precisely because it implies "remove funding entirely", which has an exaggerated emotional impact?
In any case, neither example is the same thing as a large social movement using it as a slogan, especially when that movement publishes things like "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
When things like that appear in the New York Times, is it so unreasonable for people to take their word for it? Or should we keep insisting that they don't really mean it?
And before you tell me that that's just one person's opinion, I'll just point out that so were both of your references, and those are the opinions of people who aren't even supporters of those movements. The "defund the police" movement has its own people using the term and saying "yes, we mean literally abolish the police".
The first article also quotes someone else saying defund. Eliminating sociology, history, anthropology, and language aren't mainstream conservative positions. Minority studies and gender studies maybe.
I picked 2 old articles from different political tribes to show it isn't new or just 1 tribe. Defund the Pentagon is a slogan now. Bernie Sanders[1] and Barbara Lee[2] proposed cutting the military budget by 10% and called it defunding.
I don't see anyone saying defund can't mean abolish. But most people who mean abolish say abolish because defund can mean reduce funding.
It's unreasonable to listen to people on the fringe of a movement and ignore the majority. It's unreasonable to read NYT opinion pieces and ignore NYT news pieces.[3] It's unreasonable to ignore actual legislation. It's unreasonable to ignore all the top search results.
When you march with something that’s objectively false and materially misleading, you lose my good faith engagement.
“Defund the police” is misleading in a way that “Trump Train” and “Ridin’ with Biden” are not. It’s not a real train and Biden isn’t with you, but people are not misled.
English is not my first language, but it seems an ambiguous slogan as the prefix de- not only means to remove but also to reduce / degrade. For instance, there were some recent calls for "defunding the Pentagon", in the sense of reducing military spending.
I mean, you're basically the problem here. You're very clearly being disingenuous and playing word games at the exact moment you're accusing others of doing the same.
