Defund the Police U.S or anywhere?

[Endus]

I am a bit lazy to respond to all your wrong point.

But :""Defund the police" needs to be turned into "Partially remove funding and responsibility from police and shift it to social services"" is not what Endus was defending. He clearly said, remove funds from Police to fund others services like social services and thus reducing responsibility from police.

Which is equally a mouthful and thus unworkable as a slogan.

I've already explained why "reform the police" doesn't work, either, since the Defund movement wants a signifigant reduction in policing, and "reform" in no way implies that (unlike "Defund".)

There isn't another, better, snappier word to use that more-accurately represents the movement.

I get that many people reject that slogan because they oppose defunding and support police, but that's not an issue with the slogan.

Like, if you prefer, we can go back to slogans like "Fuck the police" and "All Cops are Bastards". People who support police and their abuses hated those slogans, too.

All this is just deflection so we don't talk about the actual principle being discussed. It's tone policing, nothing more.

Btw, having kids is not necessarily linked to having free time but rather "mental load", and thus not having the motivation to look for the meaning of bad slogan.

Then you also don't have the time to hear about the slogan, or form any opinions about any political movements, in the first place.

This remains a non-argument. Again, just pure deflection and tone policing.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Btw, having kids is not necessarily linked to having free time but rather "mental load", and thus not having the motivation to look for the meaning of bad slogan.

If you don't have the mental load to learn a really simple platform behind a slogan, you won't have the mental load to partake in politics. Unless your participation in politics includes blindly swinging your ignorance around proudly. Which I guess is what's going on here?

Again, I find it utterly baffling that people think deliberate ignorance is the fault of the other person. I find it baffling that they feel the right to participate in a conversation they know nothing about. In every other situation where this happens, you'd be laughed at and humiliated. The only reason you're not is there are enough other conservatives to back you up and expect the same thing. Tribalism at its finest.

Information and knowledge is your own responsibility. Don't act all offended when someone calls you stupid/ignorant/uninformed when it's your own decision to be that way.

It seems only in pointing at left wing policy does the right somehow seem to unify in proclaiming that they're allowed to not learn their opponent's platform because it's "too much work". But it doesn't exactly surprise me that reactionary conservatives would argue that they're entitled to arguing for the policy of the entire country while knowing jack shit about it.

But in making this post, I've realized that about sums up conservative politics as a whole. "I don't know what the fuck I'm doing, nor should I ever learn what the fuck I'm doing, but I'm gonna do whatever kneejerk feels good to me and force my ignorance on everyone else."

[Specialka]

Which is equally a mouthful and thus unworkable as a slogan.

I've already explained why "reform the police" doesn't work, either, since the Defund movement wants a signifigant reduction in policing, and "reform" in no way implies that (unlike "Defund".)

There isn't another, better, snappier word to use that more-accurately represents the movement.

I get that many people reject that slogan because they oppose defunding and support police, but that's not an issue with the slogan.

Like, if you prefer, we can go back to slogans like "Fuck the police" and "All Cops are Bastards". People who support police and their abuses hated those slogans, too.

All this is just deflection so we don't talk about the actual principle being discussed. It's tone policing, nothing more.



Then you also don't have the time to hear about the slogan, or form any opinions about any political movements, in the first place.

This remains a non-argument. Again, just pure deflection and tone policing.

A reform can lead to a defund, because you need a reform to get a defund.

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't have the mental load to learn a really simple platform behind a slogan, you won't have the mental load to partake in politics. Unless your participation in politics includes blindly swinging your ignorance around proudly. Which I guess is what's going on here?

Again, I find it utterly baffling that people think deliberate ignorance is the fault of the other person. I find it baffling that they feel the right to participate in a conversation they know nothing about. In every other situation where this happens, you'd be laughed at and humiliated. The only reason you're not is there are enough other conservatives to back you up and expect the same thing. Tribalism at its finest.

Information and knowledge is your own responsibility. Don't act all offended when someone calls you stupid/ignorant/uninformed when it's your own decision to be that way.

It seems only in pointing at left wing policy does the right somehow seem to unify in proclaiming that they're allowed to not learn their opponent's platform because it's "too much work". But it doesn't exactly surprise me that reactionary conservatives would argue that they're entitled to arguing for the policy of the entire country while knowing jack shit about it.

But in making this post, I've realized that about sums up conservative politics as a whole. "I don't know what the fuck I'm doing, nor should I ever learn what the fuck I'm doing, but I'm gonna do whatever kneejerk feels good to me and force my ignorance on everyone else."

Dude, I am a centrist. But since you are radical left, everyone more on the right looks like a conservative to you. And yet people vote, even those who do not have time to check out what a bad slogan means. So they will vote for good slogan that they may like. Simple as that.

[Endus]

A reform can lead to a defund, because you need a reform to get a defund.

So wait, "reform" works, if you make an investment into understanding the particulars of the movement and what its intent and goals are, but "defund" doesn't work, because nobody's gonna invest that kind of time into understanding anything?

Man, you really don't think any of this through before posting, do you?

[Specialka]

So wait, "reform" works, if you make an investment into understanding the particulars of the movement and what its intent and goals are, but "defund" doesn't work, because nobody's gonna invest that kind of time into understanding anything?

Man, you really don't think any of this through before posting, do you?

Because defund means for most people less police (which most people does not want because they would feel less safe) as in reform you want them to understand that you want to change the police into being more effective and eventually in the end, decreasing their budget while increasing other services. See ? Simple as that, I change a shitty slogan into a great campaign.

[Endus]

Because defund means for most people less police (which most people does not want because they would feel less safe)

That's . . . literally what the movement is about.

You've just argued that it's a bad slogan because it means what it says and people understand it correctly.

This is insane.

as in reform you want them to understand that you want to change the police into being more effective and eventually in the end, decreasing their budget while increasing other services. See ? Simple as that, I change a shitty slogan into a great campaign.

But we don't want that. We want less police. You had it right the first time, and then you changed it. Your argument is really that you just don't like the actual principle of the movement, and don't support it.

"If you just wanted what I want rather than what you want, we could all agree" is not an argument.

[Shadowferal]

" I understand crime epidemics. I also understand that crime epidemics don't magically fix themselves if you throw more police at it.

And yet it did just that as one link proved.

[Ripster42]

I think it's a bad slogan, but I also think that we should expect people to want to inform themselves.

Why? I've already show that someone making this exact argument in this thread has chosen not to inform themselves on other topics while still complaining about the issues they're choosing not to inform themselves about. While also stating in other threads that we should assume malice when other people do it. Reality is, people are lazy. People make snap judgements. You shouldn't expect people to behave contrary to what human behavior actually is.

Why am I not surprised that people who are for militarized police, would make excuses as to why people can and should remain willfully ignorant to political movements?

"I have the time to spend hours or even days on politics but I don't have 30 seconds to look up what a slogan means."

People are people who behave like people do. Expecting people to behave in ways they clearly don't isn't a winning strategy. Altering the messaging while taking human behavior into account is the smart thing to do. Performative outrage about being critiqued on ineffective messaging isn't a winning strategy either.

"I don't have 30 seconds to look up what a slogan means, but I can spend hundreds of hours of my life dedicated to politics"
-Some jackass who supposedly has kids who wants to pretend that their having children entitles them to not learn about the things they're talking about

Already shown someone who is very much in favor of the slogan doing the exact same thing in another thread. People are people who behave like people do.

That's the weirdest fucking part. Slogans from protests and ralleys sometimes have clear messages, and other times they don't. For every slogan that makes sense on its face, I can think of another that the immediate meaning isn't truly apparent until one actually learns about the movement.

And would you say that's good messaging? I sure hope not.

FOR SOME WEIRD ASS REASON people seem to think that "Defund the police" needs to be turned into "Partially remove funding and responsibility from police and shift it to social services". Doesn't quite roll off the tongue does it?

"Save our cities!" rolls off a bit better, while still making it known there's a problem. I don't understand the resistance to change here. You know the messaging polls like shit. You know people don't research things (and those people don't have to comment on social media for them to vote against the people who have messaging that bad). You know people make snap judgements. Why the resistance to change? For someone who is so adamant about people learning about an issue before commenting on it, you sure seem to be commenting a lot about messaging here. That slogan is only good messaging if the majority of people already think cops are garbage. That's not the world we live in. Acknowledging the subjective reality of the majority of american voters isn't a bad thing. Targeting those people with your messaging isn't a bad thing.

Only on issues like this do people apparently feel entitled to speak up without knowing what they're talking about. In almost any other situation, people are expected to know what they're talking about before they participate, at least on a serious level. And if they get up on a soap box and spout their ignorant crap, boo'd off the stage.

Na, people do it all the time about everything. Also, if all you're worried about is people making comments on social media, you're focused on the wrong problem. People who vote have a negative initial reaction to that messaging. That's the real problem.

But it's pretty obvious why people are so focused and shooting down the slogan: They have no real argument against the principles of the slogan. There's zero reason to keep the police as they currently are. And people know this. So rather than create actual presentable arguments, they whinge about the slogan not being super easy to understand.

They're telling you what should be obvious: messaging matters in a democracy.

It's even more telling that most people in here perfectly understand what the slogan means, and continue to argue their position from a place of ignorance. We have people over and over and over and over and over and over and over being told what the slogan means, and they still think the movement wants to abolish police. That should tell you all you need to know about the people arguing this point. They don't actually care if the slogan is super easy to understand or not. They want to dig their heels in and not budge.

Some people in this thread are like that, others hate the slogan because it's shitty messaging and they hate having to dig out from under that hole in every discussion about this subject. As you said, this thread is stupid, but it's not because messaging is being discussed, it's because there are two sides on changing the messaging when both groups know how bad the messaging is. Imagine if, instead of having remedial lessons on messaging, anything else related to the problem was being discussed.

There's no honest discussion to be had around this issue, because those who want militarized police would find another way to muddy the waters.

And there are people who refuse to accept that messaging that bad is counterproductive.

[Cthulhu 2020]

But since you are radical left,

Ah yes, you've deduced that I'm radical left because of my stance that police should be reduced to absolute minimum required, and other services which ACTUALLY PREVENT CRIME should take over.

Clearly ultra radical antifa radfem over here.



I'm sure putting that label on me made you feel good. Do you feel good and justified labeling me as such? Does it feel wonderful writing someone's opinion off by merely assigning them a label?

I'm centrist, and it's pretty clear you're not.

- - - Updated - - -

"Save our cities!" rolls off a bit better, while still making it known there's a problem.

And also lacks focus. It will accomplish nothing, exactly like MAGA did. If you don't have focus in your slogan. "Save our cities" is even more cryptic than defund the police. People are arguing that defund the police makes it hard to understand the point of the movement.

So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with "Save our cities"? People are still going to have to have it explained to them, and probably in even more detail because they don't even know police are a factor in the first place. It's created the same problem.

Perhaps it's slightly less offensive to our right leaning posters, but they're still never going to get on board with anything that takes funding away from police. So again, what's the point? I don't get why people think we need to court the right. They always claim they want the left to compromise, but when given a compromise they just go "Yeah I don't like it, we're either doing everything I want or nobody gets anything".

- - - Updated - - -

And yet it did just that as one link proved.

Throwing more police at things doesn't address the root cause. It gets some criminals off the street. But it also throws non violent criminals into a violent system. People who are not hardened criminals are thrown into a system where they have to become a hardened criminal to survive.

Our system creates more crime.

This is something we've known for a couple of decades now.

The NPR link that shows more police = fewer homicides, robbery, etc. also explains that it takes 10-17 additional police officers to prevent 1 more homicide per year, racking up millions of dollars for one saved life. A price I don't mind paying.

But here's the kicker: Rehabilitation programs would cost less and be even more effective. We have working proof in other countries.

So if it would takes fewer social workers and less money to be able to prevent more crime, I ask you again, why throw more police at the situation, considering our bloated criminal justice system creates more violent criminals? More police are a band aid on a gunshot wound.

[Endus]

And also lacks focus. It will accomplish nothing, exactly like MAGA did. If you don't have focus in your slogan. "Save our cities" is even more cryptic than defund the police. People are arguing that defund the police makes it hard to understand the point of the movement.

So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with "Save our cities"? People are still going to have to have it explained to them, and probably in even more detail because they don't even know police are a factor in the first place. It's created the same problem.

Perhaps it's slightly less offensive to our right leaning posters, but they're still never going to get on board with anything that takes funding away from police. So again, what's the point? I don't get why people think we need to court the right. They always claim they want the left to compromise, but when given a compromise they just go "Yeah I don't like it, we're either doing everything I want or nobody gets anything".

It's the blandification of marketing, trying to come up with a slogan that's such inoffensive pablum that maybe you can mislead people into accidentally supporting something they don't like. Y'know, like "pro-life" (who's anti-life, right?) or "Make America Great Again" (who doesn't want America to be "great", right?)

Not every slogan is meant to be an attractive marketing thing. See the other anti-police slogans I mentioned earlier; "Fuck the Police" and "All Cops are Bastards". Those aren't meant to be appealing to those who support cops. They're battle cries, used to pump up those who already align with the movement. "Defund the police" is, already the more-polite version. And the best arguments against it in this thread have mostly boiled down to "but people who support the police might think you want to defund them!" And I'm still saying yep, that's what it says on the tin.

"Save our cities" just flatly doesn't work, because it doesn't mean anything. Are we saving them from Godzilla and other Kaiju? Are they threatened by lava flows from volcanoes? Who knows! The slogan sure doesn't give you any clue what it's all about.

It's like whispering "hey, if you don't say you're targeting the police, and that you want to defund them, people might not assume you want to defund the police, it's a better slogan that way". And I'm just baffled as hell by that argument. Because defunding the police is what the movement's about.

"But some people might want to go all the way with the defunding" the next refrain goes. Yep! That was literally always been the case. That element's always been a part of the movement. You're correctly understanding things. Sure seems like the problem isn't the slogan, and never was. It's just people who don't support defunding to begin with, but don't want to have that conversation, for some reason.

[Ripster42]

And also lacks focus. It will accomplish nothing, exactly like MAGA did. If you don't have focus in your slogan. "Save our cities" is even more cryptic than defund the police. People are arguing that defund the police makes it hard to understand the point of the movement.

Which isn't a problem, according to you:

Slogans from protests and ralleys sometimes have clear messages, and other times they don't. For every slogan that makes sense on its face, I can think of another that the immediate meaning isn't truly apparent until one actually learns about the movement.

The good thing about it is that people don't have a negative initial reaction to it, which is what we're trying to avoid.

So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with "Save our cities"? People are still going to have to have it explained to them, and probably in even more detail because they don't even know police are a factor in the first place. It's created the same problem.

Avoiding the initial negative reaction. Messaging should benefit a movement, not detract from it.

Perhaps it's slightly less offensive to our right leaning posters, but they're still never going to get on board with anything that takes funding away from police. So again, what's the point? I don't get why people think we need to court the right. They always claim they want the left to compromise, but when given a compromise they just go "Yeah I don't like it, we're either doing everything I want or nobody gets anything".

Yes, it might be less "offensive" to right leaning posters, sure, but it's also less likely to generate a negative initial reaction to the majority of american voters. It's not just the rightwing who has the negative reaction to the slogan. Which is exactly what shadowferal has been telling you. I don't really care about our right leaning posters. One of them can't even vote here. Who gives a shit about them?

[Endus]

Which isn't a problem, according to you:

The good thing about it is that people don't have a negative initial reaction to it, which is what we're trying to avoid.

That "negative initial reaction" as described by most other posters here boils down to a more-or-less accurate understanding of the movement's goals.

It's entirely possible that it's just an unpopular idea, but marketing it with a less informative slogan with the goal of attracting more support is just intentional dishonesty, and I really don't see the point.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The good thing about it is that people don't have a negative initial reaction to it, which is what we're trying to avoid.

"Save our cities" just flatly doesn't work, because it doesn't mean anything.

It's inoffensive, lacks focus, and means nothing. It's bland and lacks the ability to make people notice. It doesn't grab anyone's attention.

Remember that episode of south park where they removed everything that offended anyone to make everything inoffensive?

That's what you've done with the slogan.

[Ripster42]

It's the blandification of marketing, trying to come up with a slogan that's such inoffensive pablum that maybe you can mislead people into accidentally supporting something they don't like. Y'know, like "pro-life" (who's anti-life, right?) or "Make America Great Again" (who doesn't want America to be "great", right?)

Hate that crap all you want, it's effective messaging.

Not every slogan is meant to be an attractive marketing thing. See the other anti-police slogans I mentioned earlier; "Fuck the Police" and "All Cops are Bastards". Those aren't meant to be appealing to those who support cops. They're battle cries, used to pump up those who already align with the movement. "Defund the police" is, already the more-polite version. And the best arguments against it in this thread have mostly boiled down to "but people who support the police might think you want to defund them!" And I'm still saying yep, that's what it says on the tin.

And you're being given the information that the messaging is counterproductive and, contrary to your previous claims, failing to readjust your position in the light of 'new' information.

"Save our cities" just flatly doesn't work, because it doesn't mean anything. Are we saving them from Godzilla and other Kaiju? Are they threatened by lava flows from volcanoes? Who knows! The slogan sure doesn't give you any clue what it's all about.

Oh man, if only you'd research! Or whatever BS you want to use in defense of your obstinacy. Except it doesn't generate an initial negative reaction. ACAB still works. The messaging there is about changing the view of police from one of safety to one of oppression. It's not moving to get rid of a safety net. It's telling you that safety net was an illusion.

It's like whispering "hey, if you don't say you're targeting the police, and that you want to defund them, people might not assume you want to defund the police, it's a better slogan that way". And I'm just baffled as hell by that argument. Because defunding the police is what the movement's about.

It's like whispering "Messaging matters in a democracy" and you don't want to change because you're really proud of your slogan or something in the face of all the information that says that messaging hurts the movement.

- - - Updated - - -

It's inoffensive, lacks focus, and means nothing. It's bland and lacks the ability to make people notice. It doesn't grab anyone's attention.

Remember that episode of south park where they removed everything that offended anyone to make everything inoffensive?

That's what you've done with the slogan.

Great, come up with a better slogan then. I'm not married to it. Continuing a campaign of counterproductive messaging is a failing strategy, as we've seen over the past entire existence of democracy.

[Endus]

It's inoffensive, lacks focus, and means nothing. It's bland and lacks the ability to make people notice. It doesn't grab anyone's attention.

Remember that episode of south park where they removed everything that offended anyone to make everything inoffensive?

That's what you've done with the slogan.

Just as another example I have definitely seen some really close variation of "save our cities" used for recycling programs. In fact, let's go looking.

https://www.saveyourcity.ca/ A website for a writer working on civic resilience in various ways.
https://www.facebook.com/saveourcityband A Doors tribute band.
https://www.saveourcityvancouver.com/ A Vancouver-specific citizen's group that seems honestly all over the place in terms of focus. Not automatically bad and I'm not digging in further to see what they're about in specific
https://www.amazon.ca/Save-Your-City.../dp/0228810876 A book condemning toxic culture in cities.
https://saveourcity.in/ A sustainable-city movement for Jaipur, in India
https://www.nature.com/articles/467883b An article in Nature about climate change impacts on cities.

I think I've made my point now; "save our city" as a brand is all over the goddamned place. Thinking it could adequately explain a focus on defunding police forces nationwide better than "defund the police" is lunacy.

[Ripster42]

Thinking it could adequately explain a focus on defunding police forces nationwide better than "defund the police" is lunacy.

Recognizing that counterproductive messaging isn't great is now 'lunacy'. This is where you'd be attacking someone else for ad hominem arguments.


Again, I'm not married to 'Save our cities'. I just know that it's infinitely better than "defund the police'.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Great, come up with a better slogan then. I'm not married to it. Continuing a campaign of counterproductive messaging is a failing strategy, as we've seen over the past entire existence of democracy.

"Defund the Police" was a slogan that first appeared in June 2020. Considering that the outrage news cycle tends to hold people's attention on any one particular topic for 3 months AT MOST, I'd say that the slogan continuing to pop up over and over is working very well. While there are some people who are choosing to remain ignorant, the mere fact that it's getting attention means that more and more are learning about what it actually means.

So really, not too worried about it considering it keeps the issue rolling through the headlines just fine.

[Ripster42]

"Defund the Police" was a slogan that first appeared in June 2020. Considering that the outrage news cycle tends to hold people's attention on any one particular topic for 3 months AT MOST, I'd say that the slogan continuing to pop up over and over is working very well. While there are some people who are choosing to remain ignorant, the mere fact that it's getting attention means that more and more are learning about what it actually means.

So really, not too worried about it considering it keeps the issue rolling through the headlines just fine.

If you mean "continues to give people a negative reaction and be counterproductive" when you say "working very well" then sure. If you mean 'effective messaging', no, it's not.

[Endus]

Hate that crap all you want, it's effective messaging.

You're confusing "effective messaging" with "effective marketing". Messaging is about communicating the core gist of the movement. Which really doesn't seem to be the problem. Marketing is about being as bland and inviting as possible to draw in as many as possible. Two different goals, entirely. If your messaging is not drawing in support, better marketing won't help. You might pad your numbers with the ignorant who don't know any better but when they realize what the movement's actually about, they'll pull themselves back out of it.

And you're being given the information that the messaging is counterproductive and, contrary to your previous claims, failing to readjust your position in the light of 'new' information.

I dug into this pretty concretely in this thread, and lemme tell you, what I got back was that the messaging was absolutely effective, the problem was that the idea itself was unpopular.

It's like whispering "Messaging matters in a democracy" and you don't want to change because you're really proud of your slogan or something in the face of all the information that says that messaging hurts the movement.

I've got literally no irons in this fire.

I'm just not seeing any argument that the slogan's actually bad. Just that the movement's ideas are not popular.

Much the same way if you pushed a democratic socialist mantra back in the '70s, you'd have been absolutely drowned by idiots calling you a "dirty commie" and shit like that, but that's not a problem with a slogan like "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need". They're correctly seeing that it's socialist, they're just irrationally opposed to socialism.

If the idea itself is unpopular, no messaging is going to change that. Not unless you're lying about the idea, or being so vague and bland you mislead people into supporting you in ignorance of what you're really about. And that's propangandizing, not informing. I don't care how effective propaganda messaging is; it's not honest, and if I can't win hearts and minds honestly, I'd rather not betray my personal ethics lying to them to confuse and mislead people into false support. Which is, essentially, what you're calling for.

- - - Updated - - -

Recognizing that counterproductive messaging isn't great is now 'lunacy'. This is where you'd be attacking someone else for ad hominem arguments.

Again, what's "counterproductive"? People who don't like the idea don't support it. That's what we're seeing. That there isn't a broad base of support for the idea.

[Ripster42]

You're confusing "effective messaging" with "effective marketing". Messaging is about communicating the core gist of the movement. Which really doesn't seem to be the problem. Marketing is about being as bland and inviting as possible to draw in as many as possible. Two different goals, entirely. If your messaging is not drawing in support, better marketing won't help. You might pad your numbers with the ignorant who don't know any better but when they realize what the movement's actually about, they'll pull themselves back out of it.

Sure thing champ. Let me know how how the polls have been going for all the people who want to defund the police. Tons of them in office right? None of them have been recalled? I'm not talking about yougov polls. I'm talking about the voting polls.

I dug into this pretty concretely in this thread, and lemme tell you, what I got back was that the messaging was absolutely effective, the problem was that the idea itself was unpopular.

The ideas of funding social services to replace police on calls they're not qualified for and supporting social services that actually prevent crime are popular ideas once you explain them. The problem is getting those people to listen to an explanation.

I've got literally no irons in this fire.

Pretty apparent. You don't really seem like you want to solve the problem, and a lot of your posting here lately has been about how america is unsaveable or other psuedo-accelerationist claptrap about how we should just let the country fail. It's incredible how bad your takes have been lately on anything other than climate change.

I'm just not seeing any argument that the slogan's actually bad. Just that the movement's ideas are not popular.

Yes, imagine something being unpopular when its messaging is so bad.

Much the same way if you pushed a democratic socialist mantra back in the '70s, you'd have been absolutely drowned by idiots calling you a "dirty commie" and shit like that, but that's not a problem with a slogan like "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need". They're correctly seeing that it's socialist, they're just irrationally opposed to socialism.

Oh man, look at how effective those capitalists "marketing" was.

If the idea itself is unpopular, no messaging is going to change that. Not unless you're lying about the idea, or being so vague and bland you mislead people into supporting you in ignorance of what you're really about. And that's propangandizing, not informing.

The whole point is that people support the ideas once they've had them explained to them, and that they don't sit around for that explanation when your messaging gives them the idea that you want to make them less safe.