Defund the Police U.S or anywhere?

[Specialka]

Again, people who want to defund the police do not want to reform the police.

"I could support your movement if you were a completely different and completely antithetical movement" is not an argument. It's just lying.

- - - Updated - - -



Slogans aren't meant to convince anyone. They're meant to be chanted by supporters and to fit on protest signs.

If you're being convinced by a slogan, you're an unthinking sheep and frankly, I wouldn't want you as part of my movement, because you don't actually support what we're about. Because you have no idea what we're about. You just saw a neat slogan. It's like joining a political party because you liked their hat and don't care about their platform.

WHOOPS.

A slogan is a motto that is enduring and tied to a group, representing their purpose or ideals. The goal of a slogan is to convince a target audience to buy a product or service, or believe in something.

https://www.canto.com/blog/what-is-a-slogan/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...XIapgJCV1r4XSf

[Ripster42]

1. If you're "too busy" to look it up, you're "too busy" to form and express any opinion on the subject whatsoever. See my addition about Jamaican politics. I don't expect everyone out there to take time out of their day to look up the state of Jamaican internal politics. I do expect them to not form an opinion unless they make that time.

And that's a bad expectation. People have initial reactions to things, including you. We saw that yesterday with the supposed insider trading that was actually about information that had been in the public realm for 17 months. Where was your reservation on saying pelosi belonged in jail?

2. Again, I'm not seeing where the initial negative response is coming from. And see above; if you don't have time to check what it means, you don't have time to form an opinion about it in the first place. It's fine to not give a shit. It's not fine to bullshit about things you've intentionally avoided learning anything about.

A lot of people believe that police bring safety. That's their preconception. When you say "Defund the police" you're telling those people you want them to be less safe. Wanting people to stop behaving in human ways that you yourself demonstrate is futile.

[uuuhname]

if you genuinely think the cops make you safe it's because you assume they will be the first line of defense of you property, not your actual life.

[Deus Mortis]

You could work out what "Defund the Police" is about in less than a minute's search time on the Internet. Not bothering to and yet still forming an opinion about the movement is not "laziness", it's malice.

Why do you get the benefit of the doubt for the cop in the other thread that you formed an opinion on without looking into it, yet people regarding this slogan do not? Why in this scenario is it automatically malice? Honest question, because I actually understand where you were coming from in the other thread, I get not wanting to "doomscroll".

Are we seriously at a point where Republicans used a word so nobody else can ever use it in the future?

I mean yes, we let them with the ok sign, a quote from you.
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53000060

You mean the actual, real hate gesture?

https://www.adl.org/education/refere...y-hand-gesture
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/76472...symbol-of-hate
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/u...ite-power.html

1> It started as a hoax, but it stopped being a hoax when white supremacists started using it for real.
2> That there's an innocent use for the gesture is not a counter-argument, as the entire point of such gestures is to act as a dog-whistle, and dog-whistles are meant to conceal the intent; they are coded messaging that only show their true meaning for those "in the know". Repurposing a traditional symbol is standard practice. See also the KKK and a burning cross. See also the Nazis and the swastika/hakenkreuz. See also the "Roman salute" the Nazis adopted and the Bellamy salute in the USA. I could go on.

[Ripster42]

there is no ""undecided" here, at least none that matter to bother catering to them. it's like the mythical suburban white middle class centrist: there is like 5 of them.

Depends what you mean. There are a shit load of people who are turned off of the movement because their initial reaction is negative. They can be convinced, and I've done so with people I know. They might already 'be decided' but it's not set in stone. Bad messaging isn't going to help that.

[Endus]

WHOOPS.

A slogan is a motto that is enduring and tied to a group, representing their purpose or ideals. The goal of a slogan is to convince a target audience to buy a product or service, or believe in something.

https://www.canto.com/blog/what-is-a-slogan/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...XIapgJCV1r4XSf

Advertising slogans and protest/political slogans aren't the same thing. Obviously. That you can't tell the difference . . . man.

[Specialka]

Advertising slogans and protest/political slogans aren't the same thing. Obviously. That you can't tell the difference . . . man.

Sure buddy . A slogan, be it to sell a product or service or a political message, is the same.

[Ripster42]

And as I edited in; I'd vastly prefer an honest and open slogan over some marketing-based pablum intended to mislead people into supporting a movement out of ignorance.

So you'd prefer to lose with your head held high and are also lying about other slogans' effects. It's not misleading to want to save our cities, cut wasteful spending, or support police by relieving them of duties they're not trained for.

[Specialka]

So you'd prefer to lose with your head held high, and are also lying about other slogans' effects. It's not misleading to want to save our cities, cut wasteful spending, or support police by relieving them of duties they're not trained for.

When I was younger, that is what I thought as well. Lose with my head held high. What I did not realize at the time is that I was still losing in the end.

[Ripster42]

I agree that on the face the slogan can definitely turn people off, but I also don't think it's appropriate to try and market a slogan that came from an emotional response to heinous acts. Logistically, a better slogan absolutely can be formed, but it also ties a lot of the anger from communities too.

IMO if the slogan alone makes up your mind then you'd probably never end up with a perfect slogan, if it is built to also induce an emotional response and create discussion through tension it works too. I don't think it works from a critical viewpoint when assessed rationally, but it's also not something built to respond to something rational either, if that makes sense?

I'll just direct you back to an earlier post:

It's almost like it's a terrible slogan that leads people to the wrong conclusions. The point of a slogan isn't to get people talking, it's to get people on your side. "Save our cities!" "Stop wasteful spending!" "Give our police the support they need!" Any of these would be a better slogan for the movement than "Defund the police!" All of them target motivations a lot of people support. All of them can be about reallocating money from the police to other social services.

[uuuhname]

if a fucking slogan is enough to keep you from trying to make society better then, fuck off. like, I really don't get this infatuation with comforting people who clearly are so comfortable they can't see how the real world functions.

[Endus]

And that's a bad expectation. People have initial reactions to things, including you. We saw that yesterday with the supposed insider trading that was actually about information that had been in the public realm for 17 months. Where was your reservation on saying pelosi belonged in jail?

Did you also notice that the moment additional information came out, I assessed it, and adjusted my position, even if I still ended up highly critical of the relatively corrupt (if technically legal) state of American governance?

In exactly the way these people we're talking about don't?

My continued antagonism in that thread is due to a whole lot of additional context that the correction didn't change, but I did correct myself on that element once you pointed it out, thanks.

Why do you get the benefit of the doubt for the cop in the other thread that you formed an opinion on without looking into it, yet people regarding this slogan do not? Why in this scenario is it automatically malice? Honest question, because I actually understand where you were coming from in the other thread, I get not wanting to "doomscroll".

As above, that I'm willing and actively do adjust my position when I get new information. I kneejerked to a conclusion, and then people like yourself said "hey, actually, check this", and I went "fuck" and amended.

In this context, if I said "eww, defund the police? But we need police, dude." and then one of you pointed out "it means divesting some duties to better-trained experts", I'd again be saying "welp, got that wrong. Doesn't sound like a bad idea actually."

That's the difference. My ignorance wasn't "willful", and I really dislike it when I'm wrong because I didn't bother checking my sources properly. There's so much bad news I've gotten sloppier than usual because I don't want to subject myself to this much negative crap all the time. But I'm also not gonna double down on a bad take, just because I don't want to admit it was misinformed.

I mean yes, we let them with the ok sign, a quote from you.
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53000060

That's a specific gesture that's literally being actively used by hate groups.

And the context was Kyle Rittenhouse's use of that specific symbol, while hanging out with known white supremacists.

It wasn't me saying any and all uses of that symbol are automatically white supremacism.

Don't ignore the context, dude.

[Specialka]

if a fucking slogan is enough to keep you from trying to make society better then, fuck off. like, I really don't get this infatuation with comforting people who clearly are so comfortable they can't see how the real world functions.

Funny, since it seems you can't see how the world functions. Remind of a quote from the movie "The Wind River" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_River_(film)).

When a young adult is scolded by the main character because he keeps doing shit stuff. The main character, after saying that he also did stupid stuff against the world until he realized that, eventually, the world would win anyway.

[Endus]

When I was younger, that is what I thought as well. Lose with my head held high. What I did not realize at the time is that I was still losing in the end.

In this context, the question is whether we should "lose" honestly by sticking to the actual policies we support and the slogan that accurately describes them, or if we should try to "win" by lying to the public about the goals being pursued.

Not only is the latter dishonest horseshit that I refuse to do because it's unethical, but if I have to lie about what I believe to get people to support me, I've already lost. So it's a question of losing and maintaining my dignity and ethics, or abandoning both and losing regardless.

So yeah, I'll stick with holding my head high, rather than debasing myself and what I believe in. It's pretty damning that you think otherwise.

[Specialka]

In this context, the question is whether we should "lose" honestly by sticking to the actual policies we support and the slogan that accurately describes them, or if we should try to "win" by lying to the public about the goals being pursued.

Not only is the latter dishonest horseshit that I refuse to do because it's unethical, but if I have to lie about what I believe to get people to support me, I've already lost. So it's a question of losing and maintaining my dignity and ethics, or abandoning both and losing regardless.

So yeah, I'll stick with holding my head high, rather than debasing myself and what I believe in. It's pretty damning that you think otherwise.

How is lying if you are using "Reform" instead of defund ? A defunding can be in a reform. Keep fighting the losing battle, it is quite pathetic and entertaining to watch.

[Ripster42]

if a fucking slogan is enough to keep you from trying to make society better then fuck off. like, I really don't get this infatuation with comforting people who clearly are so comfortable they can't see how the real world functions.

We still live in a democracy, and those people vote. When your message tells them that you want to make them less safe, their initial reaction is against you. If your message tells them you want to improve their lives, their initial reaction is for you. It's not an infatuation with 'comforting people who clearly are so comfortable they can't see how the real world functions,' it's understanding that messaging is part of politics, and public favor absolutely matters. It's a garbage slogan, and messaging matters.

[uuuhname]

Funny, since it seems you can't see how the world functions. Remind of a quote from the movie "The Wind River" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_River_(film)).

When a young adult is scolded by the main character because he keeps doing shit stuff. The main character, after saying that he also did stupid stuff against the world until he realized that, eventually, the world would win anyway.

wow dude, you really think quoting books counts as an argument here? and it makes even less sense when you actually bother to understand what I posted.

I mean, great job making my point for me, clearly being hung up on slogans means more to you than people dying or being oppressed. precisely because your comfort is more important here.

[Ripster42]

Did you also notice that the moment additional information came out, I assessed it, and adjusted my position, even if I still ended up highly critical of the relatively corrupt (if technically legal) state of American governance?

In exactly the way these people we're talking about don't?

My continued antagonism in that thread is due to a whole lot of additional context that the correction didn't change, but I did correct myself on that element once you pointed it out, thanks.

That information was already out. You just didn't do the analog of:

You could work out what "Defund the Police" is about in less than a minute's search time on the Internet. Not bothering to and yet still forming an opinion about the movement is not "laziness", it's malice.

for that topic. That's what I'm pointing out. You're criticizing people for having initial reaction to things without knowing the background, when you have initial reactions to things without knowing the background.

As above, that I'm willing and actively do adjust my position when I get new information. I kneejerked to a conclusion, and then people like yourself said "hey, actually, check this", and I went "fuck" and amended.

In this context, if I said "eww, defund the police? But we need police, dude." and then one of you pointed out "it means divesting some duties to better-trained experts", I'd again be saying "welp, got that wrong. Doesn't sound like a bad idea actually."

And I'm pointing out that we can avoid that first negative reaction in the first place by changing the slogan, and you're sitting here still defending the slogan. Just like you don't change your stance when confronted with new information WRT the slogan, other people do the same with the idea behind the slogan. Initial reactions matter.

That's the difference. My ignorance wasn't "willful", and I really dislike it when I'm wrong because I didn't bother checking my sources properly. There's so much bad news I've gotten sloppier than usual because I don't want to subject myself to this much negative crap all the time. But I'm also not gonna double down on a bad take, just because I don't want to admit it was misinformed.

Your ignorance on how bad this slogan is willful at this point. I want the movement to succeed. I hate the slogan. Slogans shouldn't make people uncomfortable if you're trying to convince them. Again, I hate starting so far behind in an argument because of a stupid slogan. I don't understand why you want to handicap both yourself in any argument about this and the movement itself in the eyes of the public at large.

[Specialka]

wow dude, you really think quoting books counts as an argument here? and it makes even less sense when you actually bother to understand what I posted.

I mean, great job making my point for me, clearly being hung up on slogans means more to you than people dying or being oppressed. precisely because your comfort is more important here.

My security and the security of my family matters to me, yes, I know, shocking.

And I support a "more effective" Police with the right person for the right job, but you won't convince people with a slogan like "Defund the Police", period.

[Ripster42]

I mean, great job making my point for me, clearly being hung up on slogans means more to you than people dying or being oppressed. precisely because your comfort is more important here.

You're arguing for pragmatism, and then immediately contradicting yourself. If you want people to stop dying and being oppressed, you need to be able to effect change. Slogans and messaging matter in a democracy unless you're just going to try for civil war. If that's your goal, I'm just going to treat you like I treat kokulums. It's not about comfort, it's about wanting effective messaging that isn't self-defeating so we can actually get the change that's needed.