Comment by cmcaleer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmcaleer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Defund the police was an inherently absurd idea. It especially bothers me that proponents gave no reasonable explanation for what happens next after defunding[1] and many seemed to have no appetite for reform. Portland was kind of a poster child for this. Just look at how things have changed after their budget slash.

- Police staffing levels are at critical levels [2]

- Violent crime has shot way up in 2021 (along with the rest of the country) [3]

- Things got so bad so quickly that in just a year millions of dollars were added back to the budget [4]

- Things have continued to get worse relative to the rest of the country (which has seen crime drop back down) [5]

When someone believes that there's semen in a beer, or they go to church, or they reply 'thank you for your service' to someone on the internet, that doesn't have real consequences for people. It might get spoken about in the media sometimes, but it's more just a side-show.

When a stupid slogan ruined the best chance America had for wide police reform in decades, that does have consequences. Even more now, nobody (who should be a cop) in Portland wants to be a cop. Lower class communities that need more patrols don't have them. People don't feel safe in their houses. Who do you think took the brunt of this: those who chanted the slogan, or those in the huge minority ethnic groups in East Portland?

And the most critical part about this: defund the police was treated with some amount of legitimacy by the media because it was their in group saying it. It should have been treated as the fringe belief it really was. Imagine if that airtime was used to campaign for reform. The real frustration of it all is that it was a zeitgeist that could have been an opportunity for real reform, and really making people want to be cops. Instead the moment was pissed away by a dumb slogan, rather than constructive debate.

[1] Besides at best a hand-wavy 'community policing', which conjures up memories of that one Simpsons episode.

[2] https://manhattan.institute/article/portlands-police-staffin...

[3] https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/fi...

[4] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/portland-among-u-s-citie...

[5] https://www.axios.com/local/portland/2023/10/30/oregon-crime...

Your comment is pretty incendiary so I won't go through it point by point, but I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) and abolishing the police. Abolishing the police altogether is more of a utopian goal and very few people think society can function today without some kind of police. That said, the typical day-to-day work for a police officer doesn't require violence or the threat of violence, and the police force shouldn't behave like some kind of paramilitary unit.

> defunding (i.e. demilitarizing)

Redefining words in order to win arguments. Nice. Defunding means exactly that. I know this because that is what happened to the police forces that were defunded. Not entirely defunded, but they ended up with less money in their budget.

> the typical day-to-day work for a police officer doesn't require violence or the threat of violence

Says who? Are you a cop? Do you have cops in the family? Are you a law enforcement expert? Do you have any source or statistic whatsoever to back that up?

> Redefining words in order to win arguments. Nice. Defunding means exactly

> that. I know this because that is what happened to the police forces that

> were defunded. Not entirely defunded, but they ended up with less money

> in their budget.

The poster is not redefining the term.

The "Defund The Police" movement has very specific and very well documented goals: Use police only for law-enforcement, and use specialized responders for non-law enforcement interactions. For example, you send mental health specialists when someone is threatening suicide. This will reduce funding for the police, but it also reduces the police's workload.

Is the movement poorly named? Yes. Is their goal to eliminate police? Absolutely not.

There's a person waving a knife or gun around in public threatening to commit suicide. Now what?

There's a person threatening suicide in public and then pulling out a knife or gun when the authorities show up. Now what?

It's easy to be an armchair law enforcement expert and dream up scenarios where the good guys always wins. But reality doesn't conform to your utopian ideas.

The movement existed for five seconds, had a really bad idea as their name, and now you're saying it was all a misunderstanding and they are really moderates?

Just take the L. The movement messed up.

The "defund the police" movement was not that well organized but I agree, they do have very specific and very well documented goals: the end of policing. They went hand-in-hand with the prison abolitionist movement.

I get that you may not want to eliminate police, but I assure you, a large number of the people at the center of these movements do want that.

The claim that the "defund the police" movement had any goal other than defunding the police is an example of "sanewashing":

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sanewashing

Yes, reduce funding so police departments don't turn paramilitary.

In the UK for instance most officers don't even carry guns.

Great.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/288256/violent-crimes-in...

UK police didn't have guns in the early 2000s either. The rise in recorded violent crime can't be explained by something that hasn't changed. You're just trolling now.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/trends-in-violent-crime/#....

I'm not trolling. Violent crime necessitates armed law enforcement.

While the rise in violent crime isn't caused by unarmed police officers the fact that they are unarmed didn't prohibit the rise in violent crime.

Did you even look at the link I included that disputes that violent crime is trending up at all? Your chart shows that digital cameras have gotten cheap. Not that violent crime has actually gone up.

> The ONS reported that victimisation rates shown by the CSEW have been decreasing in the long term. They peaked in the year ending December 1995, when 4.7% of adults were a victim of violent crime. Rates have remained below 2% since the year ending March 2014.

> In contrast to the downward trend shown by the CSEW, the ONS highlighted that police recorded violent crime increased between the years ending March 2013 and March 2022. The ONS explained that these increases are thought to be driven by improvements in police recording practices

> I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) and abolishing the police

You are playing the Motte and Bailey[1] tactic perfectly. You say that defunding means only "demilitarizing", which many people would probably agree with. But when put into practise, it's never that.

I mean, you don't need to delve very far into academia or lefty twitter to find extremist people saying exactly this, that defund does actually mean abolish, or is the first step to it. And the extremists are important in this case, because they are the ones put in power, or writing the text books for next generation in power.

So either, you're a fool & a useful idiot mindlessly parroting this Motte, or you're the deviant waiting to implement the Bailey.

I would argue you find that kind of left wing extremist exclusively on twitter and at the fringes of academia. They have no power and are not taken very seriously.

You also find them published in the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...

You just found this on Google and because this is behind a paywall you haven't read it, right? Because the argument made here isn't the one you think it is: it's about financing social care in order to be able to make crime disappear (making the police “obsolete”).

Now I don't think that's realistic, and no matter how fair your society is going to be there would always be the need for some police in the end (the author themselves acknowledge that as well when talking about “less needs” for the police), but claiming that they want to abolish the police in the sense of "directly removing it in today's society" is a strawman. (Yes the provocative title is an invitation to strawmans but you fell for the trap)

> You just found this on Google

No, it went viral three years ago when it came out and I remembered it.

> Because the argument made here isn't the one you think it is: it's about financing social care in order to be able to make crime disappear (making the police “obsolete”).

Yes, and? That’s exactly the argument I think it is.

> Yes the provocative title is an invitation to strawmans but you fell for the trap

A strawman is when you misrepresent a position as being absurd. When the position is already absurd, it is neither possible nor necessary to strawman it.

> Yes, and? That’s exactly the argument I think it is.

Then why are you responding in a thread along with someone who takes the argument as in “literally remove the police directly and let the chaos begin”? And why are you using this article as a support for their argument?

> A strawman is when you misrepresent a position as being absurd

No, a strawman is when you misrepresent someone's argument as being another absurd argument. The argument in the article isn't the one that automatic6131 is arguing against, and since you quoted the article as if it was, you're effectively making a strawman against it.

If you think the argument in the article is absurd, that's fine that you criticize it, but it's not what you're doing here.

“Defund the police” means to reduce funding to law enforcement and reallocate that funding to social programs. In the limit case, you eliminate law enforcement directly. Some people in this thread were denying this or claiming that this idea was only advocated on “Twitter and at the fringes of academia”. This claim was false because the idea was actually published by the New York Times.

Whatever particular hair you’re splitting doesn’t change that, and the fact that you’re focused on splitting that hair in particular only demonstrates the degree of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty required to make this extreme proposal sound like anything more than the gibbering nonsense it is.

The one building strawman is then accusing others of intellectual dishonesty, the poor man's argument playbook has been followed till the end and we can now stop this conversation. Thanks for making everyone lose their time.

The strawman was constructed by yourself. Your strawman is:

> someone who takes the argument as in “literally remove the police directly and let the chaos begin”

I clicked the “parent” links to read every comment in this chain about defunding the police and none of the people in this discussion match the strawman you describe. My characterization of “defund/abolish the police”, in which funding for law enforcement is reallocated to social programs, is completely consistent with how automatic6131 and cmcaleer were characterizing the slogan, contra yourself and gizmo. The first reference to abolition was automatic’s here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38083132):

> I mean, you don't need to delve very far into academia or lefty twitter to find extremist people saying exactly this, that defund does actually mean abolish, or is the first step to it.

Indeed you do not. This is exactly what the NYT piece I linked to says, in so many words. And you’ve admitted as much yourself.

"I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing) and abolishing the police"

I'd like to emphasize the distinction between your definitions of these words and the actual definitions of these words...

abolish - formally put an end to

defund - prevent (a group or organization) from continuing to receive funds

demilitarize - remove all military forces from (an area)

> demilitarize - remove all military forces from (an area)

Militarization of police refers to this trend where police has started to buy hardware that was previously of military use only[1], so it's not completely absurd to talk about the opposite motion as “demilitarization”.

> defund - prevent (a group or organization) from continuing to receive funds

Or just (significantly) reduce how much funds they get.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police

> But when put into practise, it's never that.

What do you mean? Where has police abolition been ever "put into practice"?

> I mean, you don't need to delve very far into academia or lefty twitter to find extremist people saying exactly this, that defund does actually mean abolish

If you're trying to find the point of view of stupidest leftist in existence to say “the left is stupid” then sure. Of course there are idiots/teenagers/trolls on Twitter that think that abolishing the police is the way, but that doesn't mean it's some shared position from everyone on the left or that the others are clueless.

Also, by doing this your message is violating HN's guideline.

> but I'd like to emphasize the distinction between defunding (i.e. demilitarizing)

That wasn't the popular message being broadcast into the public space.

I really don't think I'm being too incendiary. I didn't want to just spew bile, I'm frustrated at the wasted opportunity and the fact that those who have suffered most from it are those who those with the luxury beliefs were purporting to represent, and tried to show how these beliefs have harmed those who they're purportedly protecting. People shouldn't kid themselves about the consequences if they campaigned for this; it should be a useful lesson in politics for everyone.

> defunding (i.e. demilitarizing)

I agree with this! But this is reformation, not defunding. In fact, trying to create a police force more in line with Peelian principles will cost a lot more. "Reform the police" is very broad and has a lot of room for interpretation. "Defund the police" is a very straightforward request. Words have meanings, and defund does not mean demilitarize. I would bet a large amount of money on "Defund the police" polling worse with all political groups than "Reform the police" by a huge margin.

> the police force shouldn't behave like some kind of paramilitary unit

I agree with this too! Perhaps this could be done through some kind of reform ;)

Reform requires political will. And political will typically materializes when reform (a) benefits the politicians directly, (b) is made beneficial by lobbyists, (c) the public loudly demands it.

For (c) the question is: how to get the public worked up enough about an issue that they take to the streets and demand change? Nuance and careful analysis don't motivate people like catchy slogans and impossible demands.

Young people who chant impossible slogans sometimes really change society for the better. People who think in shades of gray and dream of carefully considered incremental change tend not to be involved with political action at all.

Do you have the same benign interpretation when a politician says defund say.. Social Security, or Medicare?

I don’t have an informed opinion about Portland or its police. But I think that’s not exactly the issue here.

Others have already noted that the author overstates the support for true police abolishment. Let’s set that aside.

The police are much more unpopular these days than before and the author offers their theory that it’s some deranged attempt to flex on others. There is a much simpler explanation, like the fact that you can watch a supercut of police killings on YouTube now. This prompts reflection and reassessment, and some people end up in more extreme places.

I just don’t buy this idea of costly dogma in the educated elites. You support police reform. Maybe you know people who support some form of defunding the police. Are you losing friends over this?

The author may be on more secure ground when they assert that strong political beliefs are now more untethered from lived experience. But that seems like a predictable outcome of social media. And not always a bad one - if it’s motivated by evidence and empathy.

Sometimes it’s motivated by group processes that inch that group towards radical beliefs, where one derives status from going further down the rabbit hole. That’s bad but it’s not limited to one group.

My colleague works remotely from a more rural area, the land of “Fuck Trudeau” flags. One of his neighbors recently asked him if he was worried about COVID vaccines sterilizing him. Vaccine denial is one of the most “expensive” beliefs of all time. Some sociologists have proposed that such beliefs are strongly professed - despite lived experience of it being deadly to do so - because the person will suffer a “social death” otherwise.

So even if some educated elites are being memed into weird beliefs, this phenomenon is hardly isolated to them.

The Social Justice movement has two kinds of people. The thought leaders in the universities are functionally revolutionaires: "Justice" doesn't mean fairness in their thinking, it means "privileging" the oppressed group and de-privileging the oppressor group. (See the book "Cynical Theories" for a thorough--and left-leaning--analysis of the development of the academic ideas from disillusioned Marxists Foucault/Derrier to the current state.) This isn't really "justice" in the sense of fairness, it is retribution: attempting to right a wrong by wronging.

Then there are the masses, who think "Justice" means "justice" and more or less buy the narrative. (At least, as far as I can tell.) These days, activism is how a lot of people seem to derive their meaning in life. So, "defund the police" advances the revolutionary cause, while being a pithy cause activists can rally around if they are not of the critical thinking persuasion.

The lack of thought about the after-effects is from the academic thinking. The goal is simply to tear down the oppressive system; there is no thought given to a replacement system or how that system would avoid simply being a different oppressing system. Or whether a replacement system would actually be less oppressive than the current system, which by historical standards is one of the least oppressive.

When have zeitgeist moments like that ever led to thoughtful, sober, laser-focused and effective reforms? In my experience, reform takes years and decades to build a consensus. You can’t “catch lightning in a bottle” and call it a day.

The civil rights movement, #MeToo, the Berlin Wall, the world post-2008 crisis, there are probably more that I'm not thinking of, but each of these directly contributed to a better world for those the zeitgeist focussed on in a tangible way. I think the voice of reason did pretty well in these, though unreasonable voices from within movements that made movements look bad to reasonable people existed.

The Civil Rights movement lasted from 1954 to 1968. The Berlin Wall lasted from 1961 to 1989. The #MeToo movement is ongoing and still a long way from achieving its goals.

Not sure what reforms you're referring to with the 2008 crisis. Housing is as unaffordable as ever.

I think your list reinforces my point. You can't achieve meaningful reforms instantaneously. It takes years and decades. The zeitgeist moment might be a catalyst, but focusing on it exclusively ignores all of the work on the ground.

In any case where major reforms are needed, there will always be many people on the other side who need to be convinced (or move on). This takes a long time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com