Defund the Police U.S or anywhere?

[Endus]

No cops. No enforcement.
Come to Philly after they get rid of the cops.

Nobody's talking about disbanding the police permanently.

When you have to lie about your opponent's argument, it's because you don't have an actual counterpoint.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Agree, Im just saying that even with a great society where we have filled that basic need for all we will need cops around since other impulses will create crime and there has to be a statebacked force to handle these things.

Hopefully in that situation it would mean a alot smaller force etc

Yeah like in other countries obviously nothing is perfect, but making the situation much better in terms of making those who truly make a choice not to participate in society as opposed to those that have limited and likely no opportunities.

Work has to be done, but that is it, if you do the job, you should have the resources to make prudent upward living.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, and police aren't really going to help you recover your TV. Besides the fact that white collar crime is a way bigger problem than petty theft. Wage theft alone accounts for more financial losses than common robbery, burglary and auto theft.

I agree it with you on this totally especially since wealth seem to be the role models for everyone else, HOWEVER that isn't to say by in large crime by the majority no matter how small doesn't do as much or more damage, but the wick it lit at the other end. When business and government is allowed to be corrupt, not much can be expected of the populous.

- - - Updated - - -

The titles movements are given always fail to actually represent the desired outcomes.

Defund the police. You say this to someone who doesn't know what it means, and they simply thing it means to reduce the number of officers, and literally remove funding.

Reallocation of resources is what is desired, but the title doesn't represent that at all.

But yes, I do absolutely support the reallocation of resources that our local law enforcement organizations are responsible for.

- - - Updated - - -


Kinda of off topic. But as many say often enough.

$25/hr will be the new $7.50/hr regardless.

I get what you mean but I voted no because unless or until a realistic model is put fourth we need police. Even as poorly as it is. As for minimum wage, yeah I have gotten off that support a long time ago 15/25 makes no difference it's a political tool rather than a solution. Because honestly plenty of people against even $15 think people like fast food workers are too stupid and lazy to be rewarded with more than some get now.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, so we're all clear, "defund the police" means shifting duties like traffic control and mental health care checks and so forth off police, and onto specialists with the training and resources to provide proper service there.

It's not even really anti-police, unless you're a police department that likes buying stupid military gear you don't need with massively-inflated budgets.

Yes, although in the question I felt I laid that our pretty clearly along with the question what does that look like more along the lines of a working model or example maybe somewhere else.

Ridiculously simple solution; index minimum wages or basic incomes to cost-of-living indices, so they're automatically adjusted on a yearly or twice-yearly basis.

Problem 100% solved, and those industry groups' action would do nothing but devalue the dollar, meaning the federal government would have every reason to step in and stop their manipulations.

Super bad take, dude. The only reason prices could ever rise even close to the pace that wages rise is greedy capitalists exploiting the system. And if that's a problem, the solution is to take out the capitalists, not to keep wages at starvation levels.

Well it's apt to the conditions we live if now, raising the minimum wage does nothing, but stave off best in optimum conditions a situation that will just correct itself to where the very top as you mention remain unchanged or wealthier.

I DO NOT disagree with you at all about the remedy, the problem is THAT is the problem we have now, and we have to deal with it NOW!

[Endus]

Yeah like in other countries obviously nothing is perfect, but making the situation much better in terms of making those who truly make a choice not to participate in society as opposed to those that have limited and likely no opportunities.

Work has to be done, but that is it, if you do the job, you should have the resources to make prudent upward living.

The bold is a nonsense statement, unless you're referring to the count-on-one-hand number of crazy people living up in the hills off the land somewhere.

If you're interacting with people, you're participating in society. If you're a consumer, you're participating in the economy. Labor is not required, in any way whatsoever, to qualify for that label. To any statistical measure that matters, "everyone already participates in society".

As long as productivity is keeping up with demand (not whether open jobs are filled, I'll note), then there's no additional labor required, and if employers want more workers, they need to scale up wages and benefits to make working for pay an attractive enough proposition.

- - - Updated - - -

Well it's apt to the conditions we live if now, raising the minimum wage does nothing, but stave off best in optimum conditions a situation that will just correct itself to where the very top as you mention remain unchanged or wealthier.

This is just categorically false. You're pushing propaganda.

Raising the minimum wage (and to future-proof it, tying that increase to cost-of-living) improves the economy overall by boosting consumer power, and improves quality-of-life for the working poor, with commensurate-but-declining effects in higher wages as well. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...ericans-2021-3

Also ties into improved health outcomes. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10....180622.107025/

Doesn't even lead to any meaningful reduction in jobs; https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/03/18...conomists-say/

Claiming that raising the minimum wage "does nothing" is just false. On its face.

That it doesn't fix every economic inequality issue, like wealth inequality overall, is a straw man that seeks to deflect from the legitimate and verifiable gains.

[minteK917]

Nobody's talking about disbanding the police permanently.

When you have to lie about your opponent's argument, it's because you don't have an actual counterpoint.

And here in lies the absolute problem with these dumb slogans. Defund the police and even worse abolish the police was never popular and will never be, even amongst minorities. Even worse acab. Theres a difference in trying to stir public unrest and having plain dumb slogans. Slogans shouldnt need 500 millions asterixis to not make them socially unsolvable. And no I dont even mean for the right, im mean for the average person they will not know your 500 million asterix. Trans rights are human rights, easily understandable, no asterix needed. If the slogan was as dumb for trans people as they were for the police reform they would be like: abolish gender, all cis are bastard. Which realistically there are gender abolitionists in the trans gender movement, but somehow the one I met are smart and know they shouldn't be the forefront of a public movement as gender abolition is not a thing that would be popular when even the idea of changing gender is still not accepted enough.

Its not about the right lying. The right would find a way to twist into anything being bad. But even minorities that would be on the side of police reforms, even minorities that are cops. Just gets to see a public news with people rioting and chanting ACAB and Abolish the police. And then you wonder why it gets no traction and has popularity in the 20% even in the population most affected by the terrible policing. Mabye its not just the right lying? How you word shit is actually important. Which is why polls about say healthcare in the USA is another exemple of using obtuse wording that warp popularity, but in reverse of these. The polls that word it: do you believe Us citizen should all have access to healthcare, is as high as 80+% and yet people parade this stat as if people are bought in to healthcare reform to single payer is imminent and the democrats not pushing for it are insane. But you look at the polls for single payer popularity and its in the low 30% support. Just because the republican are a trash party, doesent really let you ignore the reality of what's popular or not with the general population.

The slogans that had high approval was Black Lives Metter. Defund the police, Abolish the police and All cops are bastard, popularity were and still are all in the dumpster, should never have been used and it should be obvious why they get no support even if once you explain that the slogan doesent mean what it says it makes sense, you are already in trouble.

[XDurionX]

Nah, don't defund them. But holding them accountable would be a first step. Which is not a problem exclusive to the USA.

[Draco-Onis]

Ok I'll elaborate, if you raise the Minimum wage to $25 there are HUGE industry groups that ill in turn raise prices on goods even if it's gradual and cut cost meaning fire people to jeopardize any threat to their bottom line especially to stock holders.

False because that assumes that a) labor is the highest and only cost of producing goods b) that raising wages has no effect on purchasing power. We literally have decades of data when it comes to raising wages it doesn't cause major inflation. You know what does though trillions of dollars of free welfare money we have been giving corporations for years.

[Endus]

And here in lies the absolute problem with these dumb slogans. Defund the police and even worse abolish the police was never popular and will never be, even amongst minorities. Even worse acab. Theres a difference in trying to stir public unrest and having plain dumb slogans. Slogans shouldnt need 500 millions asterixis to not make them socially unsolvable. And no I dont even mean for the right, im mean for the average person they will not know your 500 million asterix. Trans rights are human rights, easily understandable, no asterix needed. If the slogan was as dumb for trans people as they were for the police reform they would be like: abolish gender, all cis are bastard. Which realistically there are gender abolitionists in the trans gender movement, but somehow the one I met are smart and know they shouldn't be the forefront of a public movement as gender abolition is not a thing that would be popular when even the idea of changing gender is still not accepted enough.

Its not about the right lying. The right would find a way to twist into anything being bad. But even minorities that would be on the side of police reforms, even minorities that are cops. Just gets to see a public news with people rioting and chanting ACAB and Abolish the police. And then you wonder why it gets no traction and has popularity in the 20% even in the population most affected by the terrible policing. Mabye its not just the right lying? How you word shit is actually important. Which is why polls about say healthcare in the USA is another exemple of using obtuse wording that warp popularity, but in reverse of these. The polls that word it: do you believe Us citizen should all have access to healthcare, is as high as 80+% and yet people parade this stat as if people are bought in to healthcare reform to single payer is imminent and the democrats not pushing for it are insane. But you look at the polls for single payer popularity and its in the low 30% support. Just because the republican are a trash party, doesent really let you ignore the reality of what's popular or not with the general population.

The slogans that had high approval was Black Lives Metter. Defund the police, Abolish the police and All cops are bastard, popularity were and still are all in the dumpster, should never have been used and it should be obvious why they get no support even if once you explain that the slogan doesent mean what it says it makes sense, you are already in trouble.

I can't take this post seriously.

First, slogans obviously aren't complete and thorough explanations of the issue and proposed solution. Nobody reasonable ever thought they would be. And that's what you're condemning them for; not including all the "asterisks" that fully explain the issue and solutions. That's not reasonable. That's what agendas or platform documents are for, not slogans.

If you're misinterpreting those slogans to mean something other than the movement's message, you're either willfully ignorant or lying out of malice, and I really don't think the difference here is meaningful given how absolutely minimal the effort would be to understand the movement in question. And I really don't care what a liar has to say on these issues.

Your example of alternative "trans rights" slogans are similarly terrible. Nobody is trying to "abolish gender". And "all cis are bastards" doesn't remotely work, since plenty of cis people are allies. That just demonstrates you don't even understand the point of the ACAB slogan; there are "bastard cops" in departments. There are also "good cops". Those "good cops" support and help protect the "bastards", either overtly or simply by maintaining the status quo which protects the "bastards" from repercussions for their bastard actions, and that support means those "good cops" are also "bastards". If you've got abusive officers on the force and the force isn't, at a minimum, firing those officers when the question of their conduct is raised, if not pushing DAs to have those officers criminally charged where appropriate, then all the officers in that force are bastards. If you bring that around to "cisgender people" and your re-interpretation, that would have to mean A> that there's a systemic structure that all cisgender people belong to (there isn't), and B> that there's a general support of transphobic abuses either overtly or through passivity by all cisgender people, and that's just obviously untrue, because there's plenty of cisgender allies like me who'll call transphobic people "cunts" right to their faces.

Making these claims regarding "Black Lives Matter" is particularly egregious. It is crystal clear, in the way you claim a slogan must be. The only people I have ever heard have a problem with the slogan were people who were outspokenly, blatantly racist. If you asked the "but don't all lives matter?" question, you were racist, and ignoring what the slogan actually said to dehumanize black people.

If you're lying about what a slogan was intended to mean, you were never gonna support the movement, and your intentions were always malicious. It isn't confusion about the meaning. It's dishonesty and malice. Because these things aren't actually that confusing, and people aren't actually that dump. They are that mean.

[Draco-Onis]

I can't take this post seriously.

First, slogans obviously aren't complete and thorough explanations of the issue and proposed solution. Nobody reasonable ever thought they would be. And that's what you're condemning them for; not including all the "asterisks" that fully explain the issue and solutions. That's not reasonable. That's what agendas or platform documents are for, not slogans.

If you're misinterpreting those slogans to mean something other than the movement's message, you're either willfully ignorant or lying out of malice, and I really don't think the difference here is meaningful given how absolutely minimal the effort would be to understand the movement in question. And I really don't care what a liar has to say on these issues.

Your example of alternative "trans rights" slogans are similarly terrible. Nobody is trying to "abolish gender". And "all cis are bastards" doesn't remotely work, since plenty of cis people are allies. That just demonstrates you don't even understand the point of the ACAB slogan; there are "bastard cops" in departments. There are also "good cops". Those "good cops" support and help protect the "bastards", either overtly or simply by maintaining the status quo which protects the "bastards" from repercussions for their bastard actions, and that support means those "good cops" are also "bastards". If you've got abusive officers on the force and the force isn't, at a minimum, firing those officers when the question of their conduct is raised, if not pushing DAs to have those officers criminally charged where appropriate, then all the officers in that force are bastards. If you bring that around to "cisgender people" and your re-interpretation, that would have to mean A> that there's a systemic structure that all cisgender people belong to (there isn't), and B> that there's a general support of transphobic abuses either overtly or through passivity by all cisgender people, and that's just obviously untrue, because there's plenty of cisgender allies like me who'll call transphobic people "cunts" right to their faces.

Making these claims regarding "Black Lives Matter" is particularly egregious. It is crystal clear, in the way you claim a slogan must be. The only people I have ever heard have a problem with the slogan were people who were outspokenly, blatantly racist. If you asked the "but don't all lives matter?" question, you were racist, and ignoring what the slogan actually said to dehumanize black people.

If you're lying about what a slogan was intended to mean, you were never gonna support the movement, and your intentions were always malicious. It isn't confusion about the meaning. It's dishonesty and malice. Because these things aren't actually that confusing, and people aren't actually that dump. They are that mean.

I really hate to say this but he is mostly right, you have to take into consideration the average American is really really dumb that's not even going into the fact that they really aren't into politics. The slogan defund the police to them is self explanatory to them, if you have to explain a slogan then it's a bad slogan. From personal experience I know this to be true because I have had to explain it to friends and family. Don't get me wrong having a good slogan doesn't guarantee success but it helps gain support from the average person.

[Endus]

I really hate to say this but he is mostly right, you have to take into consideration the average American is really really dumb that's not even going into the fact that they really aren't into politics. The slogan defund the police to them is self explanatory to them, if you have to explain a slogan then it's a bad slogan. From personal experience I know this to be true because I have had to explain it to friends and family. Don't get me wrong having a good slogan doesn't guarantee success but it helps gain support from the average person.

I really don't think these particular examples are all that difficult to understand, and I think the confusion comes from deep-rooted ideological opposition to the actual movement's actual goals.

And I've yet to see any real examples otherwise.

Slogans aren't meant to convince people. They're meant to be chanted by supporters. If you can't be arsed to work out what the movement actually wants, your intent's malicious from the outset.

[minteK917]

I really don't think these particular examples are all that difficult to understand, and I think the confusion comes from deep-rooted ideological opposition to the actual movement's actual goals.

And I've yet to see any real examples otherwise.

Slogans aren't meant to convince people. They're meant to be chanted by supporters. If you can't be arsed to work out what the movement actually wants, your intent's malicious from the outset.

You are giving people, not just republicans too much credit. A slogan should not be so easily dismissed and need a full platform to understand. Thats just logical. You can even notice the way republican attack these slogans, in order to attack the well made ones republican needs to conjure fucking hell itself to find a way to make it bad to someone that doesent know shit, but still has a god damn vote.

The only way they could attack blm qs a slogan was dumb shit like all lives matter, which means fuck all and could be countered by No shit thats the point. Same for trans rights, republican have to spin themselve into fucking pedophilia paranoia to even get a shit at attacking that trans right are human rights. Acab, defund the police, abolish the police. They dont even have to try, they can just repeat them wnd for mcjoe or mcjane that doesent pay that much attention, but would probably vote for police reform on the surface because they are working 50 hours a week and dont give a shit, but that sounds reasonable so why not. Thats what i was explaining with the healthcare stats too. Both could mean the same thing, but one can be agreed by almost everyone on face value without research. Again look at these slogans support lol. Im not talking about your average twitter and forum users that swim in the sea.of that culture war shit.

The average voter will not research shit. But if they read simple shit at face value a lot

[Draco-Onis]

I really don't think these particular examples are all that difficult to understand, and I think the confusion comes from deep-rooted ideological opposition to the actual movement's actual goals.

And I've yet to see any real examples otherwise.

Slogans aren't meant to convince people. They're meant to be chanted by supporters. If you can't be arsed to work out what the movement actually wants, your intent's malicious from the outset.

The year is 2022 most people aren't going to go beyond the headline with the slogan, defund the police turns off the average person. It was a very bad slogan given the fact that republicans easily weaponized it to win election. You are wrong slogan do convince people they are basically the mascot of any movement because people aren't going to do research into it. If you look at something like "living wages" or "pro-choice" you can't attack the movement using the slogan, the average person who isn't interested in politics is who you need to vote to make a difference. I mean look at a state like Florida who voted for Trump twice but easily passed a minimum wage increase.

[Endus]

You are giving people, not just republicans too much credit. A slogan should not be so easily dismissed and need a full platform to understand. Thats just logical.

I do not agree that the slogans you're listing are in any way difficult to understand or confusing. I think the entire controversy is made-up nonsense meant to mischaracterize and impugn these movements, dishonestly.

If you got confused by "Black Lives Matter" and asked "but don't all lives matter?", it's because you're racist and were opposed to the idea that black lives should hold any value. I don't believe for a hot second anyone was actually confused. Particularly because, when they were corrected, they inevitable rejected the correction and continued to push their racist bullshit.

No one who had "defund the police" explained to them changed their mind and revealed that they actually agreed.

The opposition is political and intentional. It isn't confusion. Confusion can be easily settled with explanation. Explanation has not settled these debates. Because it was never actually confusion.

The average voter will not research shit. But if they read simple shit at face value a lot

Again; I do not see any meaningful difference between willful ignorance (which is what you're describing here) and intentional malice. It's a Venn diagram that makes a single circle.

- - - Updated - - -

The year is 2022 most people aren't going to go beyond the headline with the slogan, defund the police turns off the average person. It was a very bad slogan given the fact that republicans easily weaponized it to win election. You are wrong slogan do convince people they are basically the mascot of any movement because people aren't going to do research into it. If you look at something like "living wages" or "pro-choice" you can't attack the movement using the slogan, the average person who isn't interested in politics is who you need to vote to make a difference. I mean look at a state like Florida who voted for Trump twice but easily passed a minimum wage increase.

"Living wage" isn't a slogan, it's a pretty basic term in economics.

And "pro-choice" has absolutely been misrepresented and lied about in exactly the same ways as "Defund the Police" has, with misgynist shitheads shrieking that they're "choosing murder" or whatever stupid-ass talking point they have that year. The only real difference is we've got like a half-century of pro-life/pro-choice activity now, so the two slogans have been simple labels, where their original meaning doesn't even really matter any more.

And in that 50 years, pro-lifers are still pushing the same lies about the pro-choice movement. Because they don't care that they're lies.

[Unlimited Power]

The very origin of the police is a force to protect the interests of the rich.

As I'm not an American, I don't feel qualified to comment on them. That said, if I was to ever visit America, even as a white man, I would have no trust that they'd have my best interests in mind.

In Denmark and frankly most of northern Europe, especially the rest of Scandinavia, I'd at the very least trust that the police would have the safety of the general public in mind.

The fact that most officers don't wield loaded weapons because they aren't expecting to get shot at also helps tremendously.

[Deus Mortis]

I really don't think these particular examples are all that difficult to understand, and I think the confusion comes from deep-rooted ideological opposition to the actual movement's actual goals.

And I've yet to see any real examples otherwise.

Slogans aren't meant to convince people. They're meant to be chanted by supporters. If you can't be arsed to work out what the movement actually wants, your intent's malicious from the outset.

They are not difficult to understand for you because you pay attention to politics deeply. You fail completely on understanding the average person though. A lot of people are too fucking busy with life to invest as much time into politics as those of us on this board have. While on the surface Defund the Police would on face value, take money away from them, you have to remember something that the republicans have been saying for a long time. That is Defund Planned Parenthood, and when republicans say that they mean a lot more than just taking some money away.

https://news.yale.edu/2022/02/04/res...licy-proposals

The core data used in the study came from a national survey of 1,137 U.S. adults conducted in October 2020. Respondents’ support for efforts to abolish (23%), defund (34%), and reform (66%) the police closely matched opinion polls conducted around the same time.

The researchers first examined whether the relative lack of support for the two more radical proposals — the abolishment and defunding of police departments — can be explained by a disconnect between the movement’s slogans and policy goals. To test this, they randomly presented each respondent with one of the movement’s slogans, e.g., “defund the police,” or policy goals, e.g., “reduce police budgets and reallocate funding to social services,” and then had them indicate their support for it on a 5-point scale.

They found that respondents were significantly more supportive of reform, rather than defunding or abolishing police, regardless of whether they were presented a slogan or policy goal. The policy goals of “reform the police” caused the greatest increase in public support across the three movements, according to the study.

[Endus]

They are not difficult to understand for you because you pay attention to politics deeply. You fail completely on understanding the average person though. A lot of people are too fucking busy with life to invest as much time into politics as those of us on this board have.

Again, I do not recognize any material difference between the willfully ignorant and the actively malicious. They're the same people, with the same motives.

Considering we're talking about not having the 30 fucking seconds it would take someone to type in "what is black lives matter" or "what is defund the police" and read the answer. You don't need a grad school knowledge base. The time it takes these people to express their dislike could have been spent figuring out what it actually meant, first.

They chose to skip immediately to dislike, because their propaganda source told them to and they won't think for themselves.

Those are the people who are "confused".

The source you linked proves this. That they literally do not know a goddamned thing about the movement, but expressed an opinion anyway.

That's malice. It isn't justifiable conduct. They were predisposed by their propaganda outlet to turn against the movement, and literally do not know what they're talking about.

If you support the ideas behind "defund the police" when the slogan's taken away, but you keep attacking the Defund movement, your antagonism is malicious and partisan, not factual or reasonable. You're acting out of intentional malice, and your opinion is therefore irrelevant.

Why are we blaming the movement, rather than the malicious idiots lying about the movement?

[Forogil]

You are giving people, not just republicans too much credit. A slogan should not be so easily dismissed and need a full platform to understand.

Agreed. A slogan should ideally be something that many outside the core group can easily agree with, and also highlight the actual issue.

'Defund the police' fails on both fronts, as it doesn't attract others (well, except libertarians) and the problem with the police in the US isn't necessarily that they have too much money, and are too good at what they do. The reason the police has gotten army gear isn't that they are as heavily funded as the military but that it is cheap surplus.

If the idea is to hire social workers instead of police, the reality is that such measure are will likely take time to take effect so you would have to plan to fund both the social workers and the police at least during a transition period.

It's like finding that the problem with health-care in the US it that too many rely on emergency services for health-care (due to lack of cheap non-emergency health-care and the care is not really adequate) and that the health-care would be better if there were cheap and available non-emergency health-care and then create the slogan 'Defund the Emergency Ward'.

And it seemed that most initiatives didn't think this through, but just seemed to have the idea of first defund the police and then figure out how to solve the problem, and it's certainly not helped by the presence of actual police abolition activists.

The average voter will not research shit. But if they read simple shit at face value a lot

It's not only the average voters, but some of the voted as well!
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/07/u...day/index.html

They didn't follow through, it seems they failed in amending the charter, and allegedly the ones proposing it were defeated in new elections.

That's the consequence of having bad slogans. I'm not sure if people are genuinely that stupid, or they deliberately set out to fail.

[Kathandira]

The very origin of the police is a force to protect the interests of the rich.

Indeed, We should all start calling them Pinkertons

[Endus]

Agreed. A slogan should ideally be something that many outside the core group can easily agree with, and also highlight the actual issue.

'Defund the police' fails on both fronts, as it doesn't attract others (well, except libertarians) and the problem with the police in the US isn't necessarily that they have too much money, and are too good at what they do. The reason the police has gotten army gear isn't that they are as heavily funded as the military but that it is cheap surplus.

If the idea is to hire social workers instead of police, the reality is that such measure are will likely take time to take effect so you would have to plan to fund both the social workers and the police at least during a transition period.

Neither of those are legitimate concerns. The first misses the entire point of the movement in what I assume must be intentional bad faith, because literally any amount of time spent looking into it would have shown that's not what people are saying.

And the second, literally nobody argues that these reforms could be immediate and effortless. But delaying the start point only serves to delay the final end point, too. It's an argument used to delay and deflect, and also thus not presented as a good-faith criticism.

You're making my point for me.

[Deus Mortis]

Agreed. A slogan should ideally be something that many outside the core group can easily agree with, and also highlight the actual issue.

'Defund the police' fails on both fronts, as it doesn't attract others (well, except libertarians) and the problem with the police in the US isn't necessarily that they have too much money, and are too good at what they do. The reason the police has gotten army gear isn't that they are as heavily funded as the military but that it is cheap surplus.

If the idea is to hire social workers instead of police, the reality is that such measure are will likely take time to take effect so you would have to plan to fund both the social workers and the police at least during a transition period.

It's like finding that the problem with health-care in the US it that too many rely on emergency services for health-care (due to lack of cheap non-emergency health-care and the care is not really adequate) and that the health-care would be better if there were cheap and available non-emergency health-care and then create the slogan 'Defund the Emergency Ward'.

And it seemed that most initiatives didn't think this through, but just seemed to have the idea of first defund the police and then figure out how to solve the problem, and it's certainly not helped by the presence of actual police abolition activists.


It's not only the average voters, but some of the voted as well!
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/07/u...day/index.html

They didn't follow through, it seems they failed in amending the charter, and allegedly the ones proposing it were defeated in new elections.

That's the consequence of having bad slogans. I'm not sure if people are genuinely that stupid, or they deliberately set out to fail.

Besides it being a bad slogan, even minorities don't want to defund the police.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ack-crime.html

White respondents were slightly more likely to choose police reform than public safety. But Black respondents named public safety as their top concern, and they ranked police reform last. White residents opposed defunding the police, but Black residents rejected it even more decisively.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...s%20052321.pdf
When the majority of even minorities is against the movement, then it is a losing issue

[uuuhname]

Besides it being a bad slogan, even minorities don't want to defund the police.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ack-crime.html

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...s%20052321.pdf
When the majority of even minorities is against the movement, then it is a losing issue

wow, who knew propaganda meant to dilute the message could be so effective. not that opinion polls matter one fucking iota when police reform is very necessary regardless of your feelings.

- - - Updated - - -

The slogans that had high approval was Black Lives Metter. Defund the police, Abolish the police and All cops are bastard, popularity were and still are all in the dumpster, should never have been used and it should be obvious why they get no support even if once you explain that the slogan doesent mean what it says it makes sense, you are already in trouble.

facts don't care about your feelings. either you are in favor of police reform or you're not. pick a side and maybe learn to deal with people being passionate about things they care about.