Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmdshiftf4 | Hacker News Reader

>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.

View on HN

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