Hacker News Reader

Comment by triceratops | Hacker News Reader

> it sounds like the goal is a dismantling of police and courts which form the backbone of a civil rule of law society.

It's not. The goal is to demand equal protections under the law for all, eliminate racial bias in policing, judging and sentencing, and make police themselves follow the law.

Don't be misled by the "defund police" mantra. It's just a way to divert resources to community engagement programs and/or get out of contracts with police unions. It doesn't literally mean "shut down the police department and courts".

> From my limited understanding of this position

At least you're honest about it. I'd encourage you to educate yourself instead of just relying on soundbites and scare-mongering media headlines (not saying that's what you've been doing so far).

View on HN

It's more complicated than that. There's a debate about what it means among the people advocating for it, with (as far as I can tell) the people who originated the phrase strongly objecting to the suggestion that they didn't mean it literally.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23470187

https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921.

>It doesn't literally mean "shut down the police department and courts".

This doublespeak, which reminds me of the whole "Kill All Men" issue, which itself was quickly followed by a rush to say "Noo you stupid man, we don't mean kill all men, just some men", makes my skin crawl.

Let's take a quick look at the dictionary:

Defund:

verb

prevent from continuing to receive funds.

If you are failing to use the language correctly, correct yourself. Don't attempt to gaslight people and twist the meaning of established terms.

If it helps, I think "kill all men" is reprehensible and illegal. "Defund police" even taken literally, is neither of those things, so you're drawing a false equivalence.

If you eliminate funding for an existing police department, firing all of the employees, and divide all of its functions, including dealing with violent criminals, and performing investigations, up among other departments (both existing and new), isn't "defund" accurate? That's the most extreme position on the spectrum along which police reform plans lie. "Defund police" is a pithy catchphrase, an opening position for negotiations. I don't think the language is what needs "correcting". It's important to educate oneself on the issues instead of assuming the worst about anyone you disagree with.

> If it helps, I think "kill all men" is reprehensible and illegal.

Why would that help? Did you start the meme?

> isn't "defund" accurate?

Yes. That's the whole point. "defund the police" is wildly unpopular, so people have started to change the very meaning of those words so the other people won't hate them quite so much. It's not working.

> an opening position for negotiations

I can't tell if you actually believe that or if you're arguing in bad faith now. Nobody believes the people saying "defund the police" aren't extreme and serious. Killing people and burning down their homes and businesses is not the beginning point of a negotiation. It's a hostage taker's demand.

The Motte-and-Bailey is the ploy of either an intentional deceiver, or a parroting crony. Neither shows sign of arguing in good faith or reason.

Given that this whole thread started with a strawman ("dismantling of police and courts ..., civil rule of law society), a motte-and-bailey seems appropriate. Thanks for introducing me to that term btw, TIL. It's a nice one.

The reply by cmdshiftf4 was an example of tone policing - criticizing the words and attacking a simple slogan, instead of addressing the meat of the issue. You yourself have engaged in an ad hominem argument by calling me (indirectly) "an intentional deceiver" or "a parroting crony", rather than talk about the issue.

(See, I, too, know the names of some logical fallacies. I also like dropping them into online debates to show that I alone have developed my opinions using solely logic, reason, and facts, whereas everyone else is biased and relies on emotion and personal history. :-P)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com