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.
