Defund the Police?

[3rdnlng]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

Please explain how we have defunded any of those things. And please use the definition of defund prior to the past couple weeks. 

It has to be true, the meme was posted on the internet.

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, BillStime said:

So you’re saying we’d have less police brutality if only people could go to Yosemite? Or eat better chicken? Or mail letters more frequently? Or perhaps go to the opera? Or get cheaper solar panels?

Who knew?

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Thought experiment:

 

Regarding underperforming schools, the refrain from the left is that they are underfunded, and need more money in order to improve performance.

 

The same individuals, when confronted with substandard policing, insist that police forces be defunded in order to improve performance.

 

How are these two positions congruent?

I was going to write that more (not less) money should go into policing if they truly want to take steps to improve police performance.  That includes more money for basic entry-level recruit training and ongoing yearly training (de-esculation training, mental health response training, etc.).  If these cities cut funding for the police the first thing that will go are training programs.

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

So you’re saying we’d have less police brutality if only people could go to Yosemite? Or eat better chicken? Or mail letters more frequently? Or perhaps go to the opera? Or get cheaper solar panels?

Who knew?

yup that’s right - that is precisely what is intended.

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

yup that’s right - that is precisely what is intended.

Well it makes about as much sense as your meme. 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

yup that’s right - that is precisely what is intended.

Cool! This should be an interesting societal experiment for sure! But let me ask you....are the police the ones who’re supposed to be at Yosemite eating better chicken, and mailing postcards? 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

So corrupt. I hung out at this place in the '90's 

 

https://buffalonews.com/2020/06/14/bar-owner-describes-police-shakedown-before-mollys-pub-death/

[Hedge]

 

 

[B-Man]

George Floyd Family Members Gave an Interview Sunday That Every 'Defund the Police' Proponent Should Watch

 

 

.

[Buffalo_Gal]

This will end well:
 

NYPD disbands plainclothes anti-crime units
 

The NYPD is eliminating its Anti-Crime Units on the precinct level and public housing area level, Commissioner Dermot Shea announced on Monday. About 600 officers will be reassigned to the detective bureau, neighborhood policing program, and other units effective immediately.
 

Anti-crime officers typically operate in plainclothes, Shea said, and focus on getting illegal guns off the streets of New York. That has led to those cops being involved in a number of shootings, the commissioner said.
 

</snip>

[Hedge]

 

 

[Hedge]

 

 

Edit to add a follow up the next day:

 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Hedge

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Hedge]

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/12/2020 at 10:03 PM, GregPersons said:

Where does language come from? God? 

 

Really love the folks dying on this hill. "Language never changes, snowflake!" lol 

 

Kind of a really direct example of how racists really need to insist on their own fictional reality with highly developed selective listening skills. Let's see how it manifests this time...

 

"Defund" is the right word.

 

It means starting the conversation from 0 and building up. 

 

Not starting from current police budgets and working down.

 

It's strong language for a reason. It's a negotiating tactic. It communicates the severity and vastness of change needed.

 

It's the right word.

 

It's arguably not strong enough. "Imprison the police" once we remove legal qualified immunity... that's gonna be a fun conversation.

 

<< TLDR Summary: please reconsider the “defund the police” slogan. >>

 

Good post, Mr. Persons.

 

Correct, language is constantly evolving. I’m sure Noam Chomsky and Richard Dawkins were smiling as they read your post. Unfortunately, the evolution of language is also a major contributor to miscommunication between people of different classes, generations, races, geographical regions, and even political affiliations…as we’re now seeing in real time.

 

Today I won’t push back on the merit of “defunding” the police, to use your intended meaning of the word. We agree on many of the institutional changes that need to happen within American police forces, though I’m not convinced that your process of getting there is the best one. Maybe I will soon? The argument that this drastic method is necessary to break those irrationally intransigent police unions is a compelling one, but I need to learn more. Any specific articles you recommend I read? Should I finally finish watching The Wire series?!

 

What I want to discuss is the merit of the marketing strategy behind the slogan, “defund the police.” Defunding only references the first of many steps that likely need to be taken. It’s a severe use of the word which has definitely captured national attention and sparked discussion, but I’m concerned about the transition from the bull-in-the-china-shop attention-capturing phase to the persuasion phase. Right now the polling numbers show roughly two-thirds of Americans do not agree in any way with the “defund the police” movement. BLM is a bottom-up grassroots organization that can’t so easily control the messaging like a top-down organization can. We may be passing a point in time where the BLM movement is losing much of its power leverage, in much the same way that additional quarantine enforcements are no longer on the political table following the public Floyd protests and the upcoming Trump rallies. Anyone with a TV or internet connection by now should be aware of the police brutality crisis toward blacks. Those who are unsure, indifferent, or outright hostile to the solution-seeking stages are probably pulling further away as each day passes with more news of protests and outbreaks of riots but inadequate discussion of solutions. This country has had plenty of race protests and riots by now. How much positive change has actually resulted from each of them? Take the infamous LA Police Department, for example: 1943 Zoot Suit riots to 1965 Watts riots to 1992 Rodney King riots to where they still are today. Why did nothing fundamentally change?

 

I’d like the BLM movement to consider changes to their use of language. Try alternate words like “reform” the police. Or try word qualifiers like “Camden” defund the police. Or try newly invented words like “floydund” the police or whatever to change the trajectory of the public discourse. I would also reconsider recent efforts to change the Webster’s Dictionary meaning of the word “racism” into one with a unidirectional power dynamic component to it. Maybe introduce a phrase like “racially insensitive” into the vernacular to replace the “racist” label that is used so often. This isn’t about capitulation. This is about the efficacy of an activist movement’s communication. A large majority of Americans are moderate-minded people inclined to favor institutions of law and order. The reality is that more of their support is needed to force Democratic Party political leaders of all levels (local, state, national), as well as black community leaders, to enact positive change in multiple areas (police relations, economic class politics, stable black family structures…yeah yeah I know, that last one is supposed to be a white nationalist talking point…).

 

A very personal example of how the misuse of words can derail a movement: Bernie’s 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. As you know, “socialism” in America is a word hopelessly laden with all sorts of residual Cold War fearmongering that the more successful American progressive/populist movements of the early twentieth century didn’t have to worry about. Bernie’s campaign was a top-down organization that had no excuse for failing to control the language in a national discussion. I would have used “social democracy” and dropped “socialism” altogether. And to be more precise, social democracy should be differentiated with a qualifier like “permanent” or “finalized” social democracy since the original meaning of this phrase is supposed to represent a transitional stage on the way to replacing capitalism for good. I once recommended rebranding with newly invented singular words like “Bolshevista” to represent transitional social democracy and “Sandernista” to represent our permanent version. These did not catch on because I was a lowest-level campaign volunteer and because no one ever listens to me. But maybe when dealing with time-sensitive political movements, sometimes it’s just best to stick with more familiar word qualifiers to convey your message. Example: I often use country qualifiers to clarify nuanced political positions I have. Sometimes I’ll call myself a supporter of German-style socialism. Hmmm but I can see how that could be misconstrued, so I should stop doing that.

[GregPersons]

1 minute ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

<< TLDR Summary: please reconsider the “defund the police” slogan. >>

 

Good post, Mr. Persons.

 

Correct, language is constantly evolving. I’m sure Noam Chomsky and Richard Dawkins were smiling as they read your post. Unfortunately, the evolution of language is also a major contributor to miscommunication between people of different classes, generations, races, geographical regions, and even political affiliations…as we’re now seeing in real time.

 

Today I won’t push back on the merit of “defunding” the police, to use your intended meaning of the word. We agree on many of the institutional changes that need to happen within American police forces, though I’m not convinced that your process of getting there is the best one. Maybe I will soon? The argument that this drastic method is necessary to break those irrationally intransigent police unions is a compelling one, but I need to learn more. Any specific articles you recommend I read? Should I finally finish watching The Wire series?!

 

What I want to discuss is the merit of the marketing strategy behind the slogan, “defund the police.” Defunding only references the first of many steps that likely need to be taken. It’s a severe use of the word which has definitely captured national attention and sparked discussion, but I’m concerned about the transition from the bull-in-the-china-shop attention-capturing phase to the persuasion phase. Right now the polling numbers show roughly two-thirds of Americans do not agree in any way with the “defund the police” movement. BLM is a bottom-up grassroots organization that can’t so easily control the messaging like a top-down organization can. We may be passing a point in time where the BLM movement is losing much of its power leverage, in much the same way that additional quarantine enforcements are no longer on the political table following the public Floyd protests and the upcoming Trump rallies. Anyone with a TV or internet connection by now should be aware of the police brutality crisis toward blacks. Those who are unsure, indifferent, or outright hostile to the solution-seeking stages are probably pulling further away as each day passes with more news of protests and outbreaks of riots but inadequate discussion of solutions. This country has had plenty of race protests and riots by now. How much positive change has actually resulted from each of them? Take the infamous LA Police Department, for example: 1943 Zoot Suit riots to 1965 Watts riots to 1992 Rodney King riots to where they still are today. Why did nothing fundamentally change?

 

I’d like the BLM movement to consider changes to their use of language. Try alternate words like “reform” the police. Or try word qualifiers like “Camden” defund the police. Or try newly invented words like “floydund” the police or whatever to change the trajectory of the public discourse. I would also reconsider recent efforts to change the Webster’s Dictionary meaning of the word “racism” into one with a unidirectional power dynamic component to it. Maybe introduce a phrase like “racially insensitive” into the vernacular to replace the “racist” label that is used so often. This isn’t about capitulation. This is about the efficacy of an activist movement’s communication. A large majority of Americans are moderate-minded people inclined to favor institutions of law and order. The reality is that more of their support is needed to force Democratic Party political leaders of all levels (local, state, national), as well as black community leaders, to enact positive change in multiple areas (police relations, economic class politics, stable black family structures…yeah yeah I know, that last one is supposed to be a white nationalist talking point…).

 

A very personal example of how the misuse of words can derail a movement: Bernie’s 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. As you know, “socialism” in America is a word hopelessly laden with all sorts of residual Cold War fearmongering that the more successful American progressive/populist movements of the early twentieth century didn’t have to worry about. Bernie’s campaign was a top-down organization that had no excuse for failing to control the language in a national discussion. I would have used “social democracy” and dropped “socialism” altogether. And to be more precise, social democracy should be differentiated with a qualifier like “permanent” or “finalized” social democracy since the original meaning of this phrase is supposed to represent a transitional stage on the way to replacing capitalism for good. I once recommended rebranding with newly invented singular words like “Bolshevista” to represent transitional social democracy and “Sandernista” to represent our permanent version. These did not catch on because I was a lowest-level campaign volunteer and because no one ever listens to me. But maybe when dealing with time-sensitive political movements, sometimes it’s just best to stick with more familiar word qualifiers to convey your message. Example: I often use country qualifiers to clarify nuanced political positions I have. Sometimes I’ll call myself a supporter of German-style socialism. Hmmm but I can see how that could be misconstrued, so I should stop doing that.

 

 

Well you made me chuckle a few times anyway. Yes you should finish The Wire, it pays off very nicely.

 

I disagree on changing words to the benefit of people deliberately distorting their meaning. Bernie using socialism was and is accurate; the fact that it is scary because of McCarthyist remnants is a complication but doesn't change the meaning of the word, just the understanding.  It would be like saying it's unacceptable for Christians to call themselves that, because of all of the horrible murders and crusades carried out in Christ's name. Right?

 

"Defund" is correct. "Abolish" is correct. There is no true need for "police." There is a need for social workers and forward-thinking specialized teams to handle and resolve the root causes of civil unrest and crime. Don't take my word for it.  I highly recommend spending time with both this essay AND the comments section to listen to police officers calling for both "defund" and "abolish". https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759 

 

In a society where everybody's basic needs are met -- which if we do the math.... carry the 1..... yes, in the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION... we should be able to provide this easily. And still send Elon Musk to Mars without a problem. 

[ALF]

Never ever resist arrest , even if innocent . Mental illness and drugs on the other hand likely to resist.

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

33 minutes ago, GregPersons said:

 

 

Well you made me chuckle a few times anyway. Yes you should finish The Wire, it pays off very nicely.

 

I disagree on changing words to the benefit of people deliberately distorting their meaning. Bernie using socialism was and is accurate; the fact that it is scary because of McCarthyist remnants is a complication but doesn't change the meaning of the word, just the understanding.  It would be like saying it's unacceptable for Christians to call themselves that, because of all of the horrible murders and crusades carried out in Christ's name. Right?

 

"Defund" is correct. "Abolish" is correct. There is no true need for "police." There is a need for social workers and forward-thinking specialized teams to handle and resolve the root causes of civil unrest and crime. Don't take my word for it.  I highly recommend spending time with both this essay AND the comments section to listen to police officers calling for both "defund" and "abolish". https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759 

 

In a society where everybody's basic needs are met -- which if we do the math.... carry the 1..... yes, in the RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION... we should be able to provide this easily. And still send Elon Musk to Mars without a problem. 

 

Agree to disagree with you man  (on police) in a respectful way. But people have to change who they are. Police, or whoever else hell civilian. End being racist now. (people out there) No need for it.  No need to hurt others.   People should unite and help each other no matter who they are.

 

But read thanks for link any info helps. But please don't put me in column. My mother and I helped all different kinds of people, drive them to stores, help them get jobs.  

 

But anyway's just want all the stupid how people treat others to stop plus unite treat each other well.

[B-Man]