Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[kaelleria]

That's a major component of what's being proposed, yes. And?

That's the problem... it's a component.

I know Defund the Police and replace it with something new and reallocate funds to mental health services etc... isn't super pithy, but at least random person who doesn't care about politics would understand.

[Milchshake]

Soooo if we want better forums we should all be posting "Defund MMO-C"?

I could get on board for that.

[Edge-]

Soooo if we want better forums we should all be posting "Defund MMO-C"?

I could get on board for that.

I mean I get it's in jest, but this is still pretty fuckin gross, dude.

[Milchshake]

Looking at the recent polling.
Biden is holding all CLinton Voters
Adding more voters from everywhere else. Biden has absolutely 0 problem among very liberal or young voters, running considerably better than Clinton among both.

NYT pollster Nate Cohen
New polls show Biden building a wide 10 point lead over the president
His advantage is driven by a gigantic advantage among women and gains among white voters without a degree

[PACOX]

Not sure if this sad, funny or both

The Trump campaign spent $400,000 on largely pointless TV ads in DC just so the president and his allies would see them, report says





Pre Corona there was talk about how the money advantage of Trump would give him a major edge, but if you are spending money in Texas and now in Washington to ''cheer'' up your guy then you are definitely not going to ''destroy your opponent with an barrage of adds''.

Ridiculous and pointless use of funds but Trump has also amassed a ridiculous amount of money for his campaign.

That fact can't be taken lightly.

[Sunseeker]

And yet, there's been no explanation for why you leap to that conclusion, because nothing about the word "defund" translates as "abolish forever". If anything, it's an odd word to use in that context, which invites examination.

Actually it does. Since things don't operate without funding. So...ya know.

It's a terrible slogan and even some of the people shouting it know it.

Slogans are like jokes: when you have to explain it, they're not working. The whole point of a slogan is to save you the trouble of explaining a complicated issue by summing it up with a catchy acronym or phrase. "Defund the police" translating into "reduce police funding so they can't buy military toys and spread the rest of the funds out so they can better deal with mental health and education issues and also train them better" is a terrible slogan because not one iota of "defund the police" implies that.

[PACOX]

Ok, this is just too rude and disgusting so I will take the bait so to speak.

You are wrong right off the bat; I am not criticizing any movement, I am criticizing the slogan. The premise of your passionate post is already faulty. Your second mistake is wrongly assuming my position on the matter, and then attacking it in a disgusting manner.

Your biggest mistake is trying to get me to use the phrase "politically correct" yet again, probably because you have had a lot of practice taking swings at that and are eager to repeat your performance. I am not telling you to be anything, because I don't think you are important, informed or representative of any movement whatsoever. If anything I think you are doing more damage to a cause you are trying to support, because if I were a low information Joe or Jane I might've made the mistake of assuming that you are representative of the movement and condemned it on the spot.

Take your attempts at semantic argument, assumptions and misguided attacks elsewhere, I won't play nice with you.

This entire paragraph is about being politically correct

I agree that "defund the police" is a poor choice of words, and words matter in the world of politics. It's aggressive rhetoric that could be interpreted in too many ways. You will get many politicians cautiously hesitating to support a movement under this banner, and many Joes and Janes refusing to support it because they can't look at the fine print. You can blame them for being stupid (or racist lol), but without them there is no movement.

We cannot say 'defund the police' because it could come off as being too harsh.

The definition of being politically correct.

Just because you didn't use the explicit phrase mean you're not talking about the phrase not being politically correct enough...

[Endus]

Actually it does. Since things don't operate without funding. So...ya know.

It's a terrible slogan and even some of the people shouting it know it.

Slogans are like jokes: when you have to explain it, they're not working. The whole point of a slogan is to save you the trouble of explaining a complicated issue by summing it up with a catchy acronym or phrase. "Defund the police" translating into "reduce police funding so they can't buy military toys and spread the rest of the funds out so they can better deal with mental health and education issues and also train them better" is a terrible slogan because not one iota of "defund the police" implies that.

Except that it explicitly frickin' does.

You folks are seriously in the same territory as "black lives matter? I think all lives matter!" territory for missing the point.

You literally acknowledge that "defund the police" translates into "reduce police funding". Yes. You then start talking about why you would do so, and that's moving beyond the purpose of a slogan.

Yes, it's three words and not a full sentence, let alone a paragraph. You have correctly noticed that it is a slogan, not a thorough breakdown of the bullet points in consideration. No slogan does that. That's not what slogans are for.

Obama's campaign slogan was "Change we can believe in." Where's the bullet points of what he meant to change? It doesn't go into those details. Why? It's a slogan. It's meant to be catchy and inspirational, not a detailed breakdown of the plan; for Obama, that was his platform.

[DarkTZeratul]

You literally acknowledge that "defund the police" translates into "reduce police funding".

But "defund" does not imply "reduce funding." It implies "eliminate funding entirely." And entirely eliminating something's budget is, in essence, abolishing it. See the GOP attempts to "defund Planned Parenthood," which nobody even pretends means anything other than "abolish Planned Parenthood."

Obama's campaign slogan was "Change we can believe in." Where's the bullet points of what he meant to change? It doesn't go into those details. Why? It's a slogan. It's meant to be catchy and inspirational, not a detailed breakdown of the plan; for Obama, that was his platform.

The difference is that most people don't look at the word "change" and all instantly assume it means a very specific type of change, because "change" is a vague word that could mean just about anything. The problem with "Defund the Police" isn't that people don't know what it means, it's that it doesn't mean what it looks like it should mean on the face of it.

[Edge-]

But "defund" does not imply "reduce funding." It implies "eliminate funding entirely." And entirely eliminating something's budget is, in essence, abolishing it. See the GOP attempts to "defund Planned Parenthood," which nobody even pretends means anything other than "abolish Planned Parenthood."

Sure, and "pro-life" people support the death penalty.

Life is full of little contradictions like this.

[Endus]

But "defund" does not imply "reduce funding." It implies "eliminate funding entirely." And entirely eliminating something's budget is, in essence, abolishing it. See the GOP attempts to "defund Planned Parenthood," which nobody even pretends means anything other than "abolish Planned Parenthood."

That's literally not what "defund" means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund
"to withdraw funding from"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/defund
"1. to withdraw financial support from, especially as an instrument of legislative control:

2. to deplete the financial resources of"

Nothing in there suggests the "entirely" bit you're tagging on. That's something you are inserting, that does not exist in the original phrasing.

The Planned Parenthood stuff works the other way around; they want to abolish PP, but know they'll never sell that, so they argue for partial defunding, with that term used. Your own example argues against your own point. Sure, they might want to keep expanding that defunding until it's all gone, but that's not what they're saying, with the slogan itself.


Like I said; you're in the exact same territory as the "black lives matter? All lives matter!" crowd. You're making up something the slogan doesn't say, so you can complain that it's a "bad slogan", but every time someone calls on you to explain why, you have to add things to the slogan to change it, because it doesn't say what you're claiming it says.

[starlord]

if you can't even get the most left wing member of congress on board with your slogan, maybe its time to admit it's not helping your cause.

but it seems more about making the right noises than enacting real change.

[DarkTZeratul]

That's literally not what "defund" means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund
"to withdraw funding from"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/defund
"1. to withdraw financial support from, especially as an instrument of legislative control:

2. to deplete the financial resources of"

Nothing in there suggests the "entirely" bit you're tagging on. That's something you are inserting, that does not exist in the original phrasing.

And yet, those definitions still all imply a kind of absoluteness. If you've withdrawn your funding or financial support from something, it's generally assumed that you're not funding it anymore, not that you're still funding it a little bit. At best the second definition on dictionary.com could be used in a "reduce" sense rather than "eliminate," but it's not clear-cut. Certainly, I've never seen or heard the word "defund" used in this manner. In fact, can you find even a single instance of someone calling for something to be defunded where they clearly want less funding rather than no funding?

[Endus]

if you can't even get the most left wing member of congress on board with your slogan, maybe its time to admit it's not helping your cause.

but it seems more about making the right noises than enacting real change.

Sanders isn't all that left wing. For one.

For two, here's AOC supporting defunding the NYPD; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9553606.html
So your claim doesn't even hold up to a cursory Google check.

For three, the City Council of Minneapolis already has a veto-proof majority to push through defunding their police department. This isn't being tossed around as a hypothetical "maybe", action is already being taken on these fronts.

[starlord]

Sanders isn't all that left wing. For one.

For two, here's AOC supporting defunding the NYPD; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9553606.html
So your claim doesn't even hold up to a cursory Google check.

For three, the City Council of Minneapolis already has a veto-proof majority to push through defunding their police department. This isn't being tossed around as a hypothetical "maybe", action is already being taken on these fronts.

yes, and there are already a handful of towns with little or no police. systemic racism in policing is solved, pack it up and go home everyone. /s

[Endus]

And yet, those definitions still all imply a kind of absoluteness. If you've withdrawn your funding or financial support from something, it's generally assumed that you're not funding it anymore, not that you're still funding it a little bit. In fact, can you find even a single instance of someone calling for something to be defunded where they clearly want less funding rather than no funding?

You can't keep inserting "all" into definitions willy-nilly, just because they don't say what you wish they'd said. None of those definitions imply any totality. You are making that up.

In fact, can you find even a single instance of someone calling for something to be defunded where they clearly want less funding rather than no funding?

Literally the movement we're talking about right now.

Defunding the ACA, which didn't eliminate it.

Defunding PP, which was never proposed as an abolishment (even if that was the eventual end-goal of the movement).

Defunding the EPA, which still exists, albeit with vastly reduced funding; https://billmoyers.com/story/heres-d...day-americans/

Do I need to keep going? You're trying to change what "defund" actually means. Most of those efforts above were intended to cripple those targets, yes. But not eliminate, necessarily. And frankly, the goal of "Defund The Police" is to cripple police departments. Because maybe that will remove their ability to predate upon and abuse civilians. Literally the entire point, here; to claw back the ridiculously extreme protections officers currently enjoy.

[Thelxi]

This entire paragraph is about being politically correct



We cannot say 'defund the police' because it could come off as being too harsh.

The definition of being politically correct.

Just because you didn't use the explicit phrase mean you're not talking about the phrase not being politically correct enough...

I did not say it is "too harsh", nor would that constitute the definition of "political correctness". Pathetic attempt to put words in my mouth. Take your drivel elsewhere.

[starlord]

It's not a slogan, it's a demand.

so by defund you want to remove all funding for all police everywhere or?

[cubby]

Can we please move the DEFUND discussion to the proper thread?

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...-police-in-USA

Or better yet, start a new one on this topic. But this is the General Election thread, and it would be nice to stay on that topic here.

[DarkTZeratul]

Literally the movement we're talking about right now.

Oh come on, Endus. I expected better of you than to argue that something is justified by its own existence.

Defunding the ACA, which didn't eliminate it.

Defunding PP, which was never proposed as an abolishment (even if that was the eventual end-goal of the movement).

Defunding the EPA, which still exists, albeit with vastly reduced funding; https://billmoyers.com/story/heres-d...day-americans/

Do I need to keep going? You're trying to change what "defund" actually means.

Are you describing what you feel happened, or the specific wording that was being called for? Because, again, to be clear, I'm not arguing that reducing police funding is a bad thing. I'm merely arguing that to most people, "defund" doesn't mean "dramatically reduce the funding in a manner structured to achieve a fundamental change in outcomes," it means "cut all funding and kill it."

Can we please move the DEFUND discussion to the proper thread?

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...-police-in-USA

Fair point. I won't take this any further.