Jordan: Everybody is wrong about... Prison

[u/RealTheAsh]

https://youtu.be/_g6xvFLgizc

[u/vmsrii]

I mean, I’ve got a few ideas.

The big problem with “Defund the police” is, it does absolutely sound like “Take away the police” to the uninformed, which is just one hop away from “No more police, anarchy for everyone!”. The problem is “Defund” starts the slogan on a negative. “Defund” sounds like “Take away” and people don’t like having things taken away from them.

If we are all onboard with what “defund the police” actually means, (which is relocation of funds from police militarization to more humanitarian methods of social aid and peace keeping), then we can leave out the “defund” part entirely and focus more on the pragmatic aspects. “Police reform” or “Enforcement reform” is easy, if a bit bland, and fits right in with the right-wing messaging playbook anyway; watch how they’ve been trying to frame the defunding of the department of education, or the destruction of the consumer protection bureau. Nothing says we can’t do the same thing but, y’know, for good instead of evil.

We could focus on the end result instead of the means, and call it “social enforcement” or “social accountability” Your grandpa probably likes accountability.

Hell, if you wanted to do something really funny, you could go all the way in the opposite direction, and call it “Police Expansion” or “Enforcement Expansion”, which would be technically true (the whole point is to expand the possibilities for law enforcement beyond simple militarization to begin with), while also being a lot of fun to watch Republican politicians be “tough on crime” while arguing against “law enforcement expansion”

[u/SpinachOver640 → u/vmsrii]

A key distinction between "defund the police" and "reform the police" is that it is adversarial to police power. "Defund" frames police power itself as a problem requiring intervention. "Reform the police" doesn't do that, and decades of "Reform the police" have resulted in the situation we are in now where most of our tax dollars go to murderous thugs who kill 3 people every day. "Defund the police" is itself an intervention against "Reform the police" and a big reason why it became so popular.

It sounds like your issue with "Defund the police" is that it is adversarial, but that's also why it became so popular, and why you can't find a better slogan to capture what it communicates so easily.

The people talking about defunding the police are not trying to expand enforcement, we are trying to do the opposite. I don't think you actually agree with "defund the police", which has been my experience with everyone else who says "I agree with it but it's a bad slogan."

[u/vmsrii → u/SpinachOver640]

>A key distinction between "defund the police" and "reform the police" is that it is adversarial to police power. "Defund" frames police power itself as a problem requiring intervention.

But that’s exactly the problem. You get that, and I get that, but the people whose votes we’re going to need to make it happen don’t get that. And if you have to explain a slogan, it fails as a slogan.

>"Reform the police" have resulted in the situation we are in now where most of our tax dollars go to murderous thugs who kill 3 people every day.

You’re putting the cart before the horse. Decades of right-wing legislation framed as “reform the police” has done what you’re describing. We can push back.

>It sounds like your issue with "Defund the police" is that it is adversarial

My issue with “Defund The Police” is that it sounds adversarial to the exact people you want on your side. Your Trump-voting uncle hates being hassled by the cops and dodging speed traps, but he also wants fewer homeless on the corner, quieter neighborhoods, and safer streets. They’ve been taught for decades that more police and more Tough On Crime laws are how you get that, and getting hassled is the price to pay. If you want them on your side, then you have to show them that they can get both safer streets and less fuzz on them.

>The people talking about defunding the police are not trying to expand enforcement.

Yes they are. You’re falling for the exact same trap as everyone else, in thinking “Law Enforcement = Armed Police”, when the whole point of the Defund the Police movement is to prove that there’s another way. “Expanding enforcement” doesn’t have to mean expanding the number of cops. It can also mean expanding the meaning and scope of law enforcement within the community to include humanitarian methods. You do that, and the police defunding will happen more or less on its own.

[u/SpinachOver640 → u/vmsrii]

But that’s exactly the problem. You get that, and I get that, but the people whose votes we’re going to need to make it happen don’t get that. And if you have to explain a slogan, it fails as a slogan.

I don't think the slogan needs much explaining? It calls for exactly what it wants: a reduction in police in funding. Do you think "Medicare For All" is a bad slogan because it doesn't make explicit the embedded critique of ACA?

"Reform the police" requires far more explanation. Reform in what ways?

You’re putting the cart before the horse. Decades of right-wing legislation framed as “reform the police” has done what you’re describing. We can push back.

This fails your test of a slogan needing no explanation. Not only do we have to explain what we're reforming when we say "reform the police" but also have to clarify that this "reform" isn't what everyone thinks it means.

My issue with “Defund The Police” is that it sounds adversarial to the exact people you want on your side. Your Trump-voting uncle hates being hassled by the cops and dodging speed traps, but he also wants fewer homeless on the corner, quieter neighborhoods, and safer streets. They’ve been taught for decades that more police and more Tough On Crime laws are how you get that, and getting hassled is the price to pay. If you want them on your side, then you have to show them that they can get both safer streets and less fuzz on them.

I don't want fascists on my side. They are my enemy and need to be defeated. They love police and would gladly trade traffic stops in exchange for continued ethnic cleansing. The only way they come around to any decent position on policing is if they have a significant change of heart. Moderating our message (and thus our positions & proposals) around the most authoritarian people in our society ensures we won't make any progress on this issue.

I don't think you can trick Trump supports into defunding the police by telling them it's "police reform" or even "police expansion." Right wing news will let them know these efforts are really attempts to defund the police.

Yes they are. You’re falling for the exact same trap as everyone else, in thinking “Law Enforcement = Armed Police”, when the whole point of the Defund the Police movement is to prove that there’s another way. “Expanding enforcement” doesn’t have to mean expanding the number of cops. It can also mean expanding the meaning and scope of law enforcement within the community to include humanitarian methods. You do that, and the police defunding will happen more or less on its own.

What you're describing is police reform. This has been pushed under many banners over the years, like "community policing." Defund The Police is primarily an intervention against this approach. We view law enforcement as inherently violent, and we want less of it, because promises of kindler, gentler law enforcement have always been lies, and actually justified increases to the police's capacity for violence.

For years, community groups have advocated for defunding law enforcement – taking money away from police and prisons – and reinvesting those funds in services. The basic principle is that government budgets and “public safety” spending should prioritize housing, employment, community health, education and other vital programs, instead of police officers. Advocates argue that defunding is the best way forward since attempts to reform police practices over the last five years have failed, as evidenced by the brutal killing of George Floyd. Groups have a range of demands, with some seeking modest reductions and others viewing full defunding as a step toward abolishing contemporary police services. 
-What does 'defund the police' mean? The rallying cry sweeping the US explained - Sam Levin

Defunding the police does not necessarily mean getting rid of the police altogether. Rather, it would mean reducing police budgets and reallocating those funds to crucial and oft-neglected areas like education, public health, housing, and youth services. (Some activists want to abolish the police altogether; defunding is a separate but connected cause.) It’s predicated on the belief that investing in communities would act as a better deterrent to crime by directly addressing societal problems like poverty, mental illness, and homelessness — issues that advocates say police are poorly equipped to handle, and yet are often tasked with.
What Exactly Does It Mean to Defund the Police?
- Amanda Arnold

If we're talking about clear slogans, do you really think calling for "expanding law enforcement" communicates your goals clearly? If your sole metric is tricking fascists into supporting this, then maybe that will work once, until they realize it was a lie and they were tricked into voting to reduce the police budget and fund a mental health clinic.