Comment by EE84M3i | Hacker News Reader

Comment by EE84M3i | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>For what it's worth, "Defund the police" does literally mean "reduce funding to what we currently refer to as the police force"

I think the relevant part is that one definition of "defund" is (from Google answer box/featured snippet, only provided definition):

>prevent from continuing to receive funds.

So some people upon first hearing the phrase "defund the police" understand it to mean "prevent the police from continuing to receive funds". Without any qualification, this is naturally understood to mean "all funds", which is not the concrete policy proposal behind (what seems to be most uses of) the phrase.

I myself had this understanding of the phrase "defund the police" when I first heard it (which is not something that I would support) but I do support most of the concrete policy proposals behind the "defund the police" movement that involve reallocating funds from the police to social services and other programs. I would be hesitatant to use the phrase myself though, because this interpretation seems quite common among people not "extremely online".

"Defund the police" is such a bad catchphrase, it does all sorts of disservices to the actual proposed measures. It sounds vengeful and petty, not thoughtful. It's also misleading - the purpose is not (or should not) be primarily to make sure police has less funds; it's to make sure social services and other programs have funds. Why not call it "fund social services" instead of "defund the police", instead? ("fund social services" is a bad name, but the spirit is right - focus on the positive outcome, not on how you'll "hurt" the police. If you want to focus on police, focus on how you'll improve their mission and help them do a better job at reducing violence in communities)

The left has been historically bad at messaging. They use terms like “wealth redistribution” or “defund the police” which triggers a lot of people. The right is much better with terms like “tax relief” or “election integrity”. That’s definitely something the left should work on.

Yep. The right has been great at messaging and mobilizing their base under a single message. See 'pro-life' for example.

Whether you agree with it or not, the purpose is to remove funds from police, which many believe is a positive outcome. Look at police budgets, how that money is spent, how it affects communities to have 60-80% of their tax money go to police. Again, you may disagree, but removing money from the police is the point of the slogan.

The point is that "defund" means "remove all funding from", not "remove some funding from". The person carrying the sign in this photo doesn't want 20% fewer abortions, they want abortions to stop altogether:

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12189446/mike-pence-planned-pa...

I live round the corner from a UK housing estate with a drugs problem. I very often deeply wish that 60-80% of my local tax money would go to the police.

I often also frankly wish that 10% of it would fund a Sharia-style hangman, but perhaps that is my inner misanthrope.

The US drug war is an abject failure, despite very generous and ever-increasing funding. Why would you think it'd work substantially better in the UK?

The point of "defund the police" is that that funding would be better used in treating the underlying causes of said drugs problem.

Here's a simple test: if half of the funds that go today to the police would simply be wasted (say, they go to a "Trump foundation" where Trump may use them as he pleases) - would you consider that a "win"? If not, your primary goal is not "defund the police", it is better allocation of funds

It's a bit late to reply, but I do think that would be a win, if not as great a win as using the money elsewhere.

So you thought there was a large group of vocal people who believed that literally zero law enforcement was a genuine wish?

There are decades of academic work on police abolition, books upon books and papers upon papers. Not everyone who says "defund the police" is an abolitionist, but many are.

As far as I can tell, there's no concrete replacement proposed for section 230, just a general wish for less protection for these platforms. Complete police and prison abolition is a much more thorough and considered philosophy.

Fair, which is what I assumed was the case, rather than the idea that we wake up one morning to literally zero recourse for someone stealing our stuff.

That assumption of cohesiveness of argument is what I’m trying to get at with my question. The argument we should be having is in the terms of the academic work, rather than the one-line phrase.

My point overall is that no equivalent academic work has been presented that actually attempts to remove Section 230 protections (as the protections stem ultimately from the first amendment), so it’s not fair to compare the two.

I may have gotten separated a bit from that point along the way, so I apologize for my lack of clarity!

I recollect a New York Times opinion piece called "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police."

I don't know the size of the group, but I believe (believed?) it was certainly a vocal group.

I have never been clear on whether they wanted to eliminate police entirely, or turn it volunteer- and donation-only.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com