Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Thelxi]

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.

Come to think of it "defund the police" also gives people the opportunity to draw a line and stop their activism. I could probably keep going with the reasons of why it is such a poor choice of words. It reminds me of the Hong Kong protests where their list of demands kept growing and growing, shrinking "universal suffrage" in the process. Demanding an investigation does not quite have the same allure as demanding democracy.

[Endus]

It's not exactly what it says or people wouldn't need to be told to go "look up" what people mean by it. Even when you do look it up, you notice that people are arguing that the police should be abolished.

We keep seeing people saying "so you mean abolish the police?" And my response has continuously been "no, 'defund' is not a synonym for 'abolish'."

But yes; before you criticize a movement, take 2 minutes and look it up. Otherwise, you have no clue what you're talking about, and no desire to change that, but still want your opinion heard about the issue you are willfully avoiding informing yourself about. It's lazy, dishonest, superficial, and why would anyone want someone like you on their side? The moment the KKK launches their new program "Love Fest", you'll be fully supporting them because "love can't be bad, right?" Because that's as deep as your thinking apparently goes.

And if you're gonna take issue with that because you would investigate what the KKK meant, then I have to fucking ask why you'd bother with them, but not these protests. Because I think that discrepancy speaks for itself.

[PACOX]

Oh fuck off...
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/s23agrrx..._crosstabs.pdf

Are you serious?
That's your rebuttal?

A pool where FAVOR and OPPOSE is virtually the same among black people? Proving my point where the ones strongly oppose defunding the police are the ones least impacted the measure?

'But PACOX, how do you explain Hispanic'?

Hispanic is not a race. A Hispanic can blend in or stuck out depending on their skin town. That state changes significantly is you chop it based on how they look and where they live.

Once again, Dems call for the black vote like they own it but don't want to give in return.

[starlord]

As an additional counterpoint to this; anyone scared off by the word "defund" was not ever going to be a positive contributor to lasting, meaningful change in police practices and culture, in the first place. They want a milquetoast, semantically empty buzzword that makes them feel like they're helping, while not actually asking anything of them and changing nothing that matters. This is the laziest, most dishonest fucking approach to social reform that there is; it says that you want to be seen as supporting change, but you're too goddamned cowardly to actually do anything that could bring about change. You want the appearance of helping, without doing the work.

Even when that "work" is as little as "taking a couple minutes to understand a movement rather than kneejerking based on your assumptions based solely on their tagline". Literally, that was too much to ask of you. But you still want the appearance of supporting them.

Do the goddamned work. Or shut the fuck up and stop pretending you're an ally; you're just a remora who wants the acclaim for being seen to support a thing, without actually engaging in support.

and you can feel good and smug and morally pure when people say "defund the police? that's a step too far" and bow out, when they might have happily supported "rearranging the budget".

purity achieved, tweets sent, virtues signaled. mission accomplished?

[PACOX]

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.

Come to think of it "defund the police" also gives people the opportunity to draw a line and stop their activism. I could probably keep going with the reasons of why it is such a poor choice of words. It reminds me of the Hong Kong protests where their list of demands kept growing and growing, shrinking "universal suffrage" in the process. Demanding an investigation does not quite have the same allure as demanding democracy.

We're worried about being politically correct in a world where the POTUS calls peaceful protesters terrorists and thugs?

The fuck?

[downnola]

We keep seeing people saying "so you mean abolish the police?" And my response has continuously been "no, 'defund' is not a synonym for 'abolish'."

But yes; before you criticize a movement, take 2 minutes and look it up. Otherwise, you have no clue what you're talking about, and no desire to change that, but still want your opinion heard about the issue you are willfully avoiding informing yourself about. It's lazy, dishonest, superficial, and why would anyone want someone like you on their side? The moment the KKK launches their new program "Love Fest", you'll be fully supporting them because "love can't be bad, right?" Because that's as deep as your thinking apparently goes.

And if you're gonna take issue with that because you would investigate what the KKK meant, then I have to fucking ask why you'd bother with them, but not these protests. Because I think that discrepancy speaks for itself.

I'm not criticizing the movement. I'm criticizing the sloppy defense of duplicitous terms. There's a reason Republicans go after Planned Parenthood by trying to "defund" it and it sure as shit isn't in an attempt to reform it. If your goal is to score cheap political points against the cons then you're not being serious about the problem at hand, are you?

[Thelxi]

We're worried about being politically correct in a world where the POTUS calls peaceful protesters terrorists and thugs?

The fuck?

I could get into a deep conversation about how activism often mirrors and matches what it fights, but you appear to be swinging at shadows defending something that I am not even attacking. If all you understood from my post was me telling you to be "politically correct", then lets just leave it at that.

[downnola]

As an additional counterpoint to this; anyone scared off by the word "defund" was not ever going to be a positive contributor to lasting, meaningful change in police practices and culture, in the first place. They want a milquetoast, semantically empty buzzword that makes them feel like they're helping, while not actually asking anything of them and changing nothing that matters. This is the laziest, most dishonest fucking approach to social reform that there is; it says that you want to be seen as supporting change, but you're too goddamned cowardly to actually do anything that could bring about change. You want the appearance of helping, without doing the work.

Even when that "work" is as little as "taking a couple minutes to understand a movement rather than kneejerking based on your assumptions based solely on their tagline". Literally, that was too much to ask of you. But you still want the appearance of supporting them.

Do the goddamned work. Or shut the fuck up and stop pretending you're an ally; you're just a remora who wants the acclaim for being seen to support a thing, without actually engaging in support.

"Agree with my motte and bailey defense of a term used in protests or you're just a milquetoast centrist that is too cowardly to bring about change"

LOL WTF? You can say defund =/= abolish until you're blue in the face. You don't speak for everyone. It's already being spread around conservative circles that it does mean that and plenty of activists are using it in that way. Minneapolis City Council is moving to dismantle it's police department. Is that not "abolishing" the police? I'm going after your defense of the term: nothing more. You want to turn that around on me like I'm being disingenuous? I don't support change because I won't go along with your premise? Get out of here with that shit.

I like you man, but you can be overly dramatic and extremely obtuse at times.

[Monster Hunter]

[PACOX]

I could get into a deep conversation about how activism often mirrors and matches what it fights, but you appear to be swinging at shadows defending something that I am not even attacking. If all you understood from my post was me telling you to be "politically correct", then lets just leave it at that.

You just criticized the movement of being being too aggressive and not politically correct. Meanwhile we're looking at a police state that has no problem with labeling you an enemy if you dare exercise your First Amendment. A government and a machine that no longer cares if the cameras off before they let the batons.

So why should I care about being politically correct when it's used against me?

No more of this 'let's keep the segregationist happy' nonsense. No more 'he was a good buy living in a backwards time'. Step up shut up. Trump isn't going to be on the ticket in 2024.

[TexasRules]

Still don't understand polls yet, eh? Even with all the people explaining them to you.... Just like a Trumpster.

I love that you think "most of the country" doesn't know who she is - any data on that? We'll wait while you rustle up the justification for us having to prove your point, as usual.

If she is so well known and your exaggerated favorite pick, why are they interviewing Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms. Same state. Why a new person instead of the woman you think should rule the United States behind the puppet that is Joe Biden? I mean you really have a hard on for someone who has no big experience above state congress.

I understand polls just fine. I understand that Hillary was going to win big in 2016 according to your precious polls. I understand less people will vote because the polls show it is in the bag. I understand. It's like how people say polling and all this "wishing" is going to turn Texas blue. Like when Beto had millions of outside state dollars flood in, more then anyone else running in any state, and still lost. All that money and still lost. Still lost. Keep touting polls over oversample demographics. It even says oversampled at the top of the article. Keep touting it. Help people feel better about staying home and not voting. And like I said, the poll doesn't show they like Biden, they are voting against Trump. You can't count on negative voting to always show up. But you feel free to tell me how polls work.

As far as other topics go, I stop talking about stuff because you guys are a circle jerk that talks and talks and talks yet do nothing, kinda like Joe Biden for the last 40 years. Democrats in major cities have run systemic racism governments....but NOW is time for change. Not the last 89 years in Chicago, or almost 40 years in Minnesota...NOW Joe Biden is going to fix everything...but he has not said how.

- - - Updated - - -

I like you man, but you shouldn't be overly dramatic and extremely obtuse all time.

I fixed that for you.

[Endus]

and you can feel good and smug and morally pure when people say "defund the police? that's a step too far" and bow out, when they might have happily supported "rearranging the budget".

purity achieved, tweets sent, virtues signaled. mission accomplished?

I'm not being "smug", at all. Willful ignorance isn't a virtue, and expecting people to take 2 minutes to inform themselves before forming an opinion is not a high bar to ask.

I'm not criticizing the movement. I'm criticizing the sloppy defense of duplicitous terms. There's a reason Republicans go after Planned Parenthood by trying to "defund" it and it sure as shit isn't in an attempt to reform it. If your goal is to score cheap political points against the cons then you're not being serious about the problem at hand, are you?

You haven't explained how it's "duplicitous". Just that some people might react irrationally and in ignorance, because they make completely unwarranted assumptions and can't be arsed to inform themselves.

All I did was point out that those people aren't useful allies, anyway. I welcome them choosing to become such, but until they do, they'll continue following the path of least resistance.

"Agree with my motte and bailey defense of a term used in protests or you're just a milquetoast centrist that is too cowardly to bring about change"

LOL WTF? You can say defund =/= abolish until you're blue in the face. You don't speak for everyone. It's already being spread around conservative circles that it does mean that and plenty of activists are using it in that way. Minneapolis City Council is moving to dismantle it's police department. Is that not "abolishing" the police? I'm going after your defense of the term: nothing more. You want to turn that around on me like I'm being disingenuous? I don't support change because I won't go along with your premise? Get out of here with that shit.

I like you man, but you can be overly dramatic and extremely obtuse at times.

Those same conservative circles claim that abortion rights is "murdering babies" and that gun control is fascism.

They're not people who can be convinced by any argument or evidence. They're nutcases. Catering to them is ridiculous.

[starlord]

I'm not being "smug", at all. Willful ignorance isn't a virtue, and expecting people to take 2 minutes to inform themselves before forming an opinion is not a high bar to ask.



You haven't explained how it's "duplicitous". Just that some people might react irrationally and in ignorance, because they make completely unwarranted assumptions and can't be arsed to inform themselves.

All I did was point out that those people aren't useful allies, anyway. I welcome them choosing to become such, but until they do, they'll continue following the path of least resistance.



Those same conservative circles claim that abortion rights is "murdering babies" and that gun control is fascism.

They're not people who can be convinced by any argument or evidence. They're nutcases. Catering to them is ridiculous.

if donald trump's election taught you anything, it should have been to never ever overestimate people. it took me 2 mins of google to find out he was in the pocket of the russians long before election day, and i shared that. he was still elected and people deny it to this day.

so when you talk about how you don't have to explain anything because people can just google it, you are only setting yourself up for failure.

its not "being useful" to refuse to solve the problem because you might have to phrase things differently.

[Endus]

if donald trump's election taught you anything, it should have been to never ever overestimate people. it took me 2 mins of google to find out he was in the pocket of the russians long before election day, and i shared that. he was still elected and people deny it to this day.

so when you talk about how you don't have to explain anything because people can just google it, you are only setting yourself up for failure.

I think you're mistaking my point.

You don't have to convince those people of anything, because they don't think about how they vote. They're going to vote for whoever they've always voted for (individual or party), and that's not ever going to change. Unless they get SUPER screwed by their choice, and then they might flip, but that'll be for the same information-agnostic kinds of reasons.

I'm saying it's a waste of time to even try and explain things to them, because they're not going to listen to the explanation, and nothing you've said has any bearing on how they'll act.

And that they don't actually have a stance on any particular issues, because of that lack of understanding, so when they say "I don't like thing because word", the response should just be an eyeroll and "so?" They weren't gonna support the thing anyway, because their vote was always going to be the way it ends up anyway.

Trump supporters are a perfect example. You want a reason to not vote Trump? I'll gesture exasperatedly at the last 3.5 years. And they'll respond with "yeah, so?" because they don't care, and in many cases, actively resist looking into any of it. Trying to convince them is like pissing into the wind.

[starlord]

I think you're mistaking my point.

You don't have to convince those people of anything, because they don't think about how they vote. They're going to vote for whoever they've always voted for (individual or party), and that's not ever going to change. Unless they get SUPER screwed by their choice, and then they might flip, but that'll be for the same information-agnostic kinds of reasons.

I'm saying it's a waste of time to even try and explain things to them, because they're not going to listen to the explanation, and nothing you've said has any bearing on how they'll act.

And that they don't actually have a stance on any particular issues, because of that lack of understanding, so when they say "I don't like thing because word", the response should just be an eyeroll and "so?" They weren't gonna support the thing anyway, because their vote was always going to be the way it ends up anyway.

then how do you propose to accomplish anything if every vote and person is set in stone? that logic doesn't make any sense, because then change is literally not possible.

[Zinstorm]

then how do you propose to accomplish anything if every vote and person is set in stone? that logic doesn't make any sense, because then change is literally not possible.

I think Endus's point is that the slogan isn't what is going to change the mind's of people who are on the fence for this issue.... and that it is definitely not gonna change the mind of anyone who opposes this issue. He is saying that the fact that people are calling this "defund" isn't what's gonna make this issue fail.

[Canpinter]

I think Endus's point is that the slogan isn't what is going to change the mind's of people who are on the fence for this issue.... and that it is definitely not gonna change the mind of anyone who opposes this issue. He is saying that the fact that people are calling this "defund" isn't what's gonna make this issue fail.

maybe that one thing alone wont be the tipping point but why use a term that's alienating/confusing to some for no obvious benefit?

[starlord]

I think Endus's point is that the slogan isn't what is going to change the mind's of people who are on the fence for this issue.... and that it is definitely not gonna change the mind of anyone who opposes this issue. He is saying that the fact that people are calling this "defund" isn't what's gonna make this issue fail.

he's correct in that people make snap judgements, and tend to stick with them. it would not hurt the cause in any way to present it in a favorable light rather than make people think "literally disband all police" and then hope some take the time to research.

[Endus]

then how do you propose to accomplish anything if every vote and person is set in stone? that logic doesn't make any sense, because then change is literally not possible.

I didn't say "everyone". I very specifically stated that there are people who take time to inform themselves before forming an opinion, even if that's "here's what Wikipedia says while I shove a donut in my face" levels of "inform". And that these people largely aren't turned off by a slogan that isn't crazy.

And "Defund the police" is not crazy. It's not all that alarming an idea. The police in the USA have had tons of money added to their budgets, and they're expected to fill a lot of roles beyond what policing usually entails, and maybe if we claw that funding way back and provide that funding to other services tailored to those goals (like social workers addressing issues of mental problems and homeless people, for instance), we'd get a better system at the end.

"Defund" means exactly that; reduce the funding. That's it. If you're knee-jerking that statement into "you wanna ABOLISH POLICE", then you weren't going to listen to anything that was proposed. If the mantra was "maybe have police not kill people as much", those same idiots would be shouting "you want police to STOP PUNISHING CRIME". Stop wasting your time removing all the semantic meaning from your phrasing in the hopes that they won't have anything to kneejerk about. They're gonna kneejerk, because they hate you and don't care what you're talking about in the first place.

This is why, for instance, so many Republicans loathe the ACA, "Obamacare", but if you ask them about specific measures, or even further elements of a universal healthcare plan ("COMMIE SKUM!"), they'll often agree with it. Because they don't have any reason for their stance. So you can't possibly give them a reason to change it. So don't waste your time.

So you focus your efforts on everyone else. The ones who can be convinced, and aren't going to panic-react over phrasing that, in any overt sense, is pretty damned neutral.

[downnola]

You haven't explained how it's "duplicitous". Just that some people might react irrationally and in ignorance, because they make completely unwarranted assumptions and can't be arsed to inform themselves.

I'll give you an example of how it's used in one way and used in another by the same person (one I genuinely like and support I might add).



In this image she's explaining that the defund the police movement is about re-imagining the current police system while tweet quoting a video of the Minneapolis City Council "dismantling" their police department. That seems to link the movement to "dismantling" the police. Some would be right to think that means abolish, it certainly seems to imply it.

In the next image she goes on to link a video of Kamala Harris and Sunny Houston "schooling" Megan McCain when she voices concern over what "defund the police" means and ask if it means abolishing the police. Sunny Houston goes on to mention that "defund the police" means reallocating some funds from the police to improve the welfare of those communities so that they're not policed in the way they are now. Attacking the issue at the roots, if you will.



I think it's in this way that it's used disingenuously, or at the very least extremely loosely. If you want to dismantle the police departments and rebuild them from the ground up while investing in the community, say it. If you only want to reduce their funding and force them into reform, say it. That's why I said we need clear language because you could literally ask Illan Omar if she means abolish the police or just reallocate their funds and she would reply with "yes." You think it means one thing, other activists mean it in a very different way.

You don't get that kind of confusion with the word reform. It might be a little too milquetoast of a slogan for you, but like Felya said, it's the details of those reforms that count. Reallocate all of the funds and rebuild policing from the ground up. Also, let's remove qualified immunity and abolish police unions while we're at it. It's not that I disagree with the outcome, I'm just arguing that we avoid these scenarios because of sloppy language altogether.

edit* This isn't really a call to tone it down to appease Republicans or people who would oppose these reforms regardless of what happens. Democrats are scrambling to distance themselves from "dismantling the police" because they're worried about how it looks to their own voters.

You know, the voters who think single-payer healthcare is too radical of a fucking policy and opted for the moderate democrat on the ticket.