Highlighting "a very very small niche" of politicians/activists isn't really debunking the "a very very small niche of the police reform community" claim.
I like Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, but they can hardly be claimed to be the mainstream portion of Congress, or even Congressional Democrats.
The entire point of the slogan is that it can reasonably be interpretted as both a call for measured reform and a demand for radical change. Activists switch between these interpretations at will.
Also, within activist circles, the most radical interpretation always wins. You're on HN and so you claim you want to "divert resources" but within "ACAB circles," the winning argument is always the most radical (prison abolition, prison = slavery, police are modern slave catchers, violence against police is justified). This pull to the extremes is what disturbs me about radical movements. It's possible that these movements have a positive effect when they interact with moderates and some kind of compromise is struck but the movements themselves are quite scary.
No True Scotsman defense incoming, as people pretend that a “very very small niche” is what it means when high-profile congressional members put forth positions that are not vigorously denounced by the media and their political allies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1381745303997...
Sitting member of Congress: "We can’t reform this."
https://mobile.twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/13817027443...
Activist with 475k followers whose name is currently: "DEFUND & ABOLISH POLICE"
https://mobile.twitter.com/BreeNewsome
Ben & Jerrys: "This system can’t be reformed."
https://twitter.com/benandjerrys/status/1381743962558504969
When activists say they want to abolish the police, they “100%” mean they want no more police, Noor says.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/17/black-lives-matte...
NYT op ed: "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...