[flagged]
We have a general social understanding of the word "defund" that also encapsulates "moving money/responsibilities from one department to another one." So it feels a little bit like a double standard to in this case assume that it necessarily means complete abolition.
But I think thesuitonym is still right to point out that this is inconsistent with how these words are regularly used in other contexts. There are people directly under their post arguing that no, defund literally means removing all money, the dictionary says so -- and that's just a really silly argument if we look at how the word is used most commonly in politics.
When people across multiple political parties are arguing about defunding everything from schools, to the IRS, to NASA, to the military, to the Post Office, it's just not honest for people to argue that in this specific case we should should look at the first result in Webster and ignore everything else.
The movement was never ONLY Black Lives Matter, or Cops Lives Don't Matter, or any of the other ways various opponents have decided to interpret the name to justify ignoring the societal criticisms of the protests.
Truth is, words are tough, and the more complex and nuanced a topic gets to be, the more a pity simple phrase or title become impossible to be accurate. Additionally, being provocative has its uses, especially in the early awareness stages of a movement.
Anti means you are against something, so the natural reading is that you don't want that thing (work) to be a thing anymore, not the more convoluted meaning you say is 'exactly that' even though nobody unfamiliar can possibly guess at it from just the word anti.
"Defund the police" meaning "zero funds for the police" or "no police exist". "Anti-work" meaning "against all work" or "work" meaning "general expenditure of productive effort" or something.
You can look a little bit more into any slogan or label and see more of what it entails. Hell, some people might want to abolish police entirely or have everyone laze around in utopian bliss while not starving. Feel free to disagree with the former and see if the latter have any plan to not starve or if it's nonsense. I've generally taken each to mean "we should allocate public security and safety money differently" and "our current construct of the job as the sole driver of societal worth is bad".
So "default" to something more reasoned and nuanced and see if they are absolutist rather than the reverse. Pithy and descriptive tend to not go hand in hand so this applies often.
Why would anyone "assume nuance" from explicit language? There's no ambiguity about what it says at face value.
Even proponents can't keep it straight in this case. An above user suggests it means "People should not have to work to live. ", whereas the anti-work sub's faq describes its mission as being "against work under Capitalism". To the extent that one labors under Socialism, they labor to live, if History is any indication. Notwithstanding, "living" can practically mean more than just subsistence since, obviously, no one supporting anti-work is starving. They're thinking about comfort and quality of life, not merely survival, and this is deliberately conflated. They can all quit their jobs and survive. Moreover, basic income, once it is implemented, would allow citizens to be consumers and purchase more comforts without working even in a Liberal democratic Capitalist society - that isn't contingent on Socialism at all.
If your buzzword means whatever it is you want it to mean, and others persistently don't interpret it the same way, then it's a failure. It only succeeds at increasing friction.
: to withdraw funding from
And yes, if I decide to withdraw all of my checking account from an ATM, I get... all of it.
"Withdraw" doesn't imply partial things. What you choose to withdraw, you withdraw.
To put it another way, if the intention was to create a succinct label that gave people a generally accurate impression before they heard the details, it was a complete failure.
Conservatives in particular love it because if they want to misrepresent it as something radical and alarming, they just have to repeat the same name that its proponents use. (Not that that is necessarily going to work for them -- I think it comes off as a bit too obvious and lazy, especially since proponents have stuck with the label and coalesced support around it.)
I don't necessarily think it's a bad name, because it has attracted a lot of attention, and the idea has gained momentum, but it's just too obvious to deny that "defund the police" was designed to be misunderstood. For good tactical reasons, maybe, but obviously intended to mislead.
Sorry but this has to be the dumbest most elitist sheltered things I've heard.
You ARE free to do what you want. What you are not free to do is demand that others support you in this endeavor.
Is your idea that policeman, firefighters, emt, doctors, teachers, farmers and the the plethora of other jobs necessary to sustain modern life should work while you are allowed go off and spend your day in hot yoga classes while they support you????
If I didn't have to work to live, I could pursue that dream.
The solution to your problem is not force a certain section of the population to work and give their salary to you so you get to "pursue your dream". Why do you get to do what you want while others are forced to keep your power on and your sewer system working daily?
Decisions have consequences, if you want something then you will need to sacrifice in certain areas.