Poll: Defund the Police U.S or anywhere?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 19 of 22 FirstFirst ...
9
17
18
19
20
21
... LastLast
  1. #361
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Yes. Everyone has a cellphone. Engaging in something while being willfully ignorant of it is the height of stupidity. Every time someone goes into something that's unfamiliar to them, they look up what they need to know.

    For some fucking odd ass reason, politics (and in particular, only left wing slogans) are where people start to argue that they should be allowed to be ignorant and still have their voices heard. But again, it's apparently only left wing slogans that people are allowed to be ignorant of.

    If you don't know what a term means, TAKE THIRTY SECONDS TO PULL OUT YOUR CELL PHONE AND LOOK IT UP or MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT.

    I don't buy the dumb ass excuse that people don't have time. 30 seconds isn't too much to ask. I don't care if you have kids, a job, three wives and two mistresses. You can take 30 seconds to learn about something you're going to spend hours participating in. Anything else is known as stupid willful ignorance. The posts you write take longer to write than the time it would take you to look up the meaning of the slogan.

    So again, if someone only has 15 seconds to give to politics, it's probably better that they just stay out of it. If you have five kids, ten wives, three jobs, fifteen dogs, and don't have time to look up the meaning of a slogan, then you likewise don't have time to participate in politics. "Said like someone who doesn't have kids" is idiotic. If you don't have time to look up a slogan because of your kids, you don't have time to participate in the politics period.
    And yet, a parent can vote. Thus it is best to have good slogan. Period.

    What you are describing is how it should be in theory with everyone educated and informed, yada, yada.

    That is why I consider that most people here are immature and living in their own bubble. In reality, people have a very short time to dedicate to politics, and that is why you need clear and short slogan to catch their attention.
    Last edited by Specialka; 2022-07-25 at 06:17 AM.

  2. #362
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    And yet, a parent can vote. Thus it is best to have good slogan. Period.

    What you are describing is how it should be in theory with everyone educated and informed, yada, yada.

    That is why I consider that most people here are immature and living in their own bubble. In reality, people have a very short time to dedicate to politics, and that is why you need clear and short slogan to catch their attention.
    Yes, and there's also an amazing point of dishonest gaslighting about the bad slogan.

    The unstated claim is that the slogan isn't a problem, since if you spent a minute you would understand that it isn't about fully defunding the police.

    But if you go to contemporaneous sources https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/06/u...rnd/index.html you see that some used 'defund' as the way to abolish the police, and you also find that many of the loudest voices for 'defund the police' rejected reform, the plan was to replace the police department - and the marches had signs saying 'no police in our future'.

  3. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Yes, and there's also an amazing point of dishonest gaslighting about the bad slogan.

    The unstated claim is that the slogan isn't a problem, since if you spent a minute you would understand that it isn't about fully defunding the police.

    But if you go to contemporaneous sources https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/06/u...rnd/index.html you see that some used 'defund' as the way to abolish the police, and you also find that many of the loudest voices for 'defund the police' rejected reform, the plan was to replace the police department - and the marches had signs saying 'no police in our future'.
    When even people for the slogan seems to misuse and misunderstand it, maybe the slogan needs to change.
    I also don't really get the backlash against doing so.

    It's way easier to change the wording of a slogan to be more accurate, but instead the ones against it says everyone else have to change instead. Which I guess is fine, but one is easier to change than the other. It seems very counter-productive.

    "But they should do their research"...
    Sure, they should, but will everyone in the world do so? No, it's actually quite stupid to think everyone will and this goes for anything. So whenever a solution is that everyone else should do something instead of changing something yourself, then you're fighting a lost cause.

    I don't have a beef in this, is just that the arguments seem so self-defeating... it's almost as if people want to fuel this kind of discussion and "misunderstandings". Hell, making it even more accurate gives you even more leverage who are against your cause, because they can't argue against it as easily. It's a Win-Win for the Defund crowd.

    It doesn't make sense to me.
    Last edited by Kumorii; 2022-07-25 at 08:24 AM.

  4. #364
    Quote Originally Posted by Deus Mortis View Post
    Some of us have talked about the movement and how it is a no go. As I linked over a week ago, but bares repeating. Go to 12
    https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...s%20052321.pdf
    We see that the majority of each Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are against the "movement". So the movement has no steam here in the states.
    Yes, and still there's overall both support for diverting some of the police budget to community policing and social services, and increase funding of police forces.

    Some 'defund' activists try to frame it as PoC not looking to the police for protection, but people actually (regardless of race) broadly say that they are likely to call 911 when someone is hurting another persons. When it comes to calling 911 if someone is suspicious the stereotype is even reversed and Whites and Asians are least likely.

    What the poll in Minneapolis revealed was that 'defund' had large support in gentrified areas, but not in north Minneapolis.

  5. #365
    I think it's a bad slogan, but I also think that we should expect people to want to inform themselves. The fact that many don't is a deeper problem than the name of a slogan, ignorance is the cause for many issues and problems in the world, but I don't know if that is something we can deal with (within the scope of this particular issue).

    Anyway, the police in the US certainly seems to be in grave need of a reform.
    "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance

  6. #366
    Quote Originally Posted by Kumorii View Post
    When even people for the slogan seems to misuse and misunderstand it, maybe the slogan needs to change.
    I also don't really get the backlash against doing so.

    It's way easier to change the wording of a slogan to be more accurate, but instead the ones against it says everyone else have to change instead. Which I guess is fine, but one is easier to change than the other. It seems very counter-productive.

    "But they should do their research"...
    Sure, they should, but will everyone in the world do so? No, it's actually quite stupid to think everyone will and this goes for anything. So whenever a solution is that everyone else should do something instead of changing something yourself, then you're fighting a lost cause.

    I don't have a beef in this, is just that the arguments seem so self-defeating... it's almost as if people want to fuel this kind of discussion and "misunderstandings". Hell, making it even more accurate gives you even more leverage who are against your cause, because they can't argue against it as easily. It's a Win-Win for the Defund crowd.

    It doesn't make sense to me.
    But if they do so, they can't play the victims anymore.

  7. #367
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    Okay, that one article made it pretty damn clear, took me a minute or so to read it and another to re-read it.
    Yes, but it is also indicated that some saw 'defund' as a step towards abolishing the police; so it's likely that some would have seen such sources first, either online or in person, especially as the most radical are often the ones pushing their message more.

    Or simply put: 'just google the slogan to inform yourself' doesn't work reliably.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    As to your second point, when police are notorious, and provably, killing people within your circles and you are disproportionately targeted by them solely for shit like skin colour, yeah, I think I'd rather no police in that future too.
    The ipsos study suggest that the wide majority in the US don't fully feel that way - regardless of skin color; and would actually phone 911 when they saw a violent crime.

    Doesn't mean that there there's a lot of confidence in the police, but still some.

    That is the case even among people living in fragile communities and who know some (or a lot) who have been mistreated by the police, where about half have some or a lot of confidence in the police - regardless of ethnicity.

    However, what is truly shocking is the low confidence in the justice system, regardless of whether you are white or black.
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/352304/...-2020-low.aspx (note it is from last year - as seen by SCOTUS having the large support of 36%).
    Last edited by Forogil; 2022-07-25 at 10:17 AM.

  8. #368
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,126
    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?

    ROFLMAO

    Jesus this fucking world man.

    "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."

    Do these people need help learning how to breath through their nose too?
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  9. #369
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    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?

    ROFLMAO

    Jesus this fucking world man.

    "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."

    Do these people need help learning how to breath through their nose too?
    Is there not a buzzword for what you are doing right now ?

    Who said anything about being ok with militarized police ?

    I can also tell you have no kids and have a lot of free time.

  10. #370
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    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? ROFLMAO Jesus this fucking world man. "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." Do these people need help learning how to breath through their nose too?
    So, you're claiming that Portland, San Francisco, and Minneapolis, and Philadelphia...liberal bastions are "willfully ignorant" without understanding at all why they insisted on having more police?

  11. #371
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Is there not a buzzword for what you are doing right now ?

    Who said anything about being ok with militarized police ?

    I can also tell you have no kids and have a lot of free time.
    "Defund the police" is a movement centered around removing most of the militarization from police and shifting that funding to social services and other things that actually solve the problems that police normally just throw people in jail for. It proposes actual solutions to the crime epidemic rather than throwing the people away where society can't see them. It's very simple. If you understand what defund the police means, then you either 1. Don't care one way or the other 2. Want to keep police militarized with bloated funding 3. Move many responsibilities and funding away from police to social services that would fix the problems our society faces.



    But this entire thread is hilariously stupid.

    I can also tell you have no kids and have a lot of free time.
    For someone who pretends to have kids, you certainly do spend a lot of time on these forums. I'll drop in for 10-15 mintues each day, swing by some posts and drop my thoughts and then leave. You seem to like to drop by multiple times a day, and have plenty of free time to do whatever you want. Who doesn't have kids now? LOL

    "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


    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. 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?

    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.

    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.

    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. 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.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    So, you're claiming that Portland, San Francisco, and Minneapolis, and Philadelphia...liberal bastions are "willfully ignorant" without understanding at all why they insisted on having more police?
    I understand crime epidemics. I also understand that crime epidemics don't magically fix themselves if you throw more police at it. But politicians know that throwing police at crime problems generally placates the populace. They're not any safer for it. After all, the increased police presence just leads to more non-violent criminals being locked up than anything else. And we've seen just how shitty many police departments are. How many cops sat around doing jack shit while an active shooter cleaned out an elementary school again?

    Listen, I know they're scary, but that dude who smells like pot that walks past you on the street is just a stoner. He's not gonna kill your family and take your stuff.
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  12. #372
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    "Defund the police" is a movement centered around removing most of the militarization from police and shifting that funding to social services and other things that actually solve the problems that police normally just throw people in jail for. It proposes actual solutions to the crime epidemic rather than throwing the people away where society can't see them. It's very simple. If you understand what defund the police means, then you either 1. Don't care one way or the other 2. Want to keep police militarized with bloated funding 3. Move many responsibilities and funding away from police to social services that would fix the problems our society faces.



    But this entire thread is hilariously stupid.



    For someone who pretends to have kids, you certainly do spend a lot of time on these forums. I'll drop in for 10-15 mintues each day, swing by some posts and drop my thoughts and then leave. You seem to like to drop by multiple times a day, and have plenty of free time to do whatever you want. Who doesn't have kids now? LOL

    "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


    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. 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?

    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.

    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.

    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. 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.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I understand crime epidemics. I also understand that crime epidemics don't magically fix themselves if you throw more police at it. But politicians know that throwing police at crime problems generally placates the populace. They're not any safer for it. After all, the increased police presence just leads to more non-violent criminals being locked up than anything else. And we've seen just how shitty many police departments are. How many cops sat around doing jack shit while an active shooter cleaned out an elementary school again?

    Listen, I know they're scary, but that dude who smells like pot that walks past you on the street is just a stoner. He's not gonna kill your family and take your stuff.
    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.

    And it seems that the militarization of the Police is not bloated budget but rather ease of access to those equipment as it seems they are free for them.

    But keep protesting, you are funny

    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.
    Last edited by Specialka; 2022-07-26 at 04:28 PM.

  13. #373
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    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.


  14. #374
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    35,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    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."
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  15. #375
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    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.

  16. #376
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    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?


  17. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.

  18. #378
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    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.


  19. #379
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    " 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.

  20. #380
    Quote Originally Posted by Dezerte View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post

    "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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •