AFAIK there hasn't been any polls to see preferences for the desired level of defunding w/in the movement. I wouldn't be surprised if 100% defunding was a plurality (but not a majority)
The abolish/disband faction is a different faction from the defund faction, sharing with the other that both believe the reform cycle where police problems are dealt woth by increasing budgets for retraining or other reform measures, reducing resources for other services, which results in police roles expanding, resulting in new police problems from inserting armed law enforcement into nee and inappropriate roles needs to be broken.
The “defund” crowd says, lets wind that the other way and drive non-core roles and the funding to go with them to agencies outside of the police departments, so that the police department is focussed on roles that require armed law enforcement.
The “disband/abolish” crowd says lets go further, and redesign community services without an all-encompassing centralized paramilitary law enforcement service, with enforcement arms where necessary within agencies with focuses other than “law enforcement”.
(There's a fringe within the disband/abolish faction that would eliminate armed law enforcement as a local government function entirely, but they aren't typical of the disband/abolish movement much less the defund movement or an umbrella including both defund and disband/abolish.)
Yes, but both use the slogan ‘defund the police’.
No, the abolish/disband faction tends to use “abolish (or disband) the police”.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ep4xy7/what-does-defund-and-...
“For the last week, mainstream publications and centrist thinkers have tied themselves in knots trying to explain that when activists say they want to defund the police, they don’t really mean that; “defund the police” is a slogan that actually means “make police departments smaller and more accountable,” they say. But many people who say “defund the police” mean exactly that—defund and abolish police departments, and use that funding to lift up communities.”
Claiming it to be a clear cut distinction simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
Saying ‘at least not yet” doesn’t change the documented the fact that people use defund the police to mean abolish the police.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth.
In just the same way, it is well documented that many people who say ‘defund the police’ mean completely defund them as a step towards abolishing them. There are people who are literally saying ‘when we say defund’ we mean abolish.
We’re not talking about whether in some abstract world a semantic distinction is possible. We’re talking about how activists are using a political slogan.
It’s hard to imagine you are really claiming that nobody who says ‘defund the police’ means to abolish the police.
You're playing semantic games with "means" here, you're using it as a verb, "intends to" and not "is a synonym for", as we have been previously in the conversation. Breaking it down, people who intend to abolish the police almost by definition also support defunding it. Because that's a step towards abolishment.
So you're correct, I'm not claiming that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ intends to abolish the police"
I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people.
> Obviously they are, but when some people say they are putting toothpaste on their toothbrush, they are doing so because they plan on brushing their teeth.
This would be more compelling if there were people who felt that just putting toothpaste on the brush was the goal. But it isn't, because we both agree that there are some people who's only goal is to (partially) defund the police.
I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s we’ll documented.
However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people.
Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s we’ll documented.
However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people.
> I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
What part are you saying is not good faith?
Am I?
> I am saying that "nobody who says ‘defund the police’ is using it as a synonym for abolish the police" to trick people.
Plenty of people are using it as a synonym for abolish the police. That’s well documented, and weird to deny.
However those people seem to be quite honest about the meaning - I.e. they are not trying to trick people.
> I'm going to disengage now because I can't see how this was done in good faith.
What claim are you saying is not made in good faith?
Democrats should have immediately distanced themselves from this movement.
When I walk by the 2MM house on Capitol Hill in Seattle with the “yes we actually mean defund the police” it’s just a bunch of misguided upper class people who are too sheltered to really know danger in their lives.