Anonymous wrote:Minneapolis is going to defund the police , this is terrifying

Anonymous wrote:Minneapolis is going to defund the police , this is terrifying

You don’t live there don’t act like you care. Anything that doesn’t directly affect you is negligible.

Minneapolis is going to defund the police , this is terrifying

“



Agree it's a terrible slogan. No one that isn't already firmly on your side and well-informed is going to understand that it doesn't actually mean to get rid of the police altogether, especially when they are already primed by their criticism of cancel culture to interpret it that way. And no one is going to go google the slogan to make sure they're interpreting it correctly!

It's incredibly counterproductive. Just like the Abolish ICE slogan. People thought that meant we should just throw open the borders.

As I watch and applaud the incredible ads being made against Trump by Never Trump Republican political operatives, I am slack-jawed at how brilliant their messaging is and how terrible ours is. ”

+1 you have to think about your “audience”. Is it people already 100% in your side or a bigger slice of the population? Too often Liberal democrats seem to ignore that importance of messaging and winning people to your ideas vs just tossing out slogans.

- moderate D who until I saw this thread thought “defund the police” meant “defund the police” and so was the stupidest idea since “defund ICE”.

^^ should have clarified that I didn’t mean the faux outrage on this thread. I meant in general.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable that people so often come up with “who will respond to domestic violence?” as the counterargument here. Cops are awful at responding to it—and more likely to commit it than people in other occupations, partly because of the traits police work selects for, partly because of how the job brutalizes them, and partly because when they do it, they get away with it.

Pick a better thing to pearl-clutch about.

+1. The amount of faux outrage for victims of domestic violence, when it finally “benefits” some people to finally care, is nauseating.

Wut? Have you read the posts mentioning domestic violence? They're all about giving this to social workers. Which appears to be what you're saying. I haven't read any posts about not doing anything about domestic violence, even from the Cons here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defund the police doesn't mean literally get rid of police and having no more police (a few mean that but most don't). It means that police are now responsible for areas that they didn't used to be, including mental health crises, homelessness, drug issues, school behavior issues, etc. that should be handled by other social services.

Defund the police means to shift some of the police budgets from the police to other social services, including community centers, youth leagues, social workers, home nurses and therapists, etc. Municipal funds can and should be reexamined and redistributed to invest in cities, not just tanks for police departments. What would you want to see to make your area a better place?

Thank you for taking the time to explain this.
Defund is a bad phrase then. Redefine, makes more sense

NP. agree. I never understood what people were arguing for with this phrase. And I also agree that if you need to take so much time to explain it, you need a better slogan. Also need to revise it because it is so easy to misconstrue and be used against you by your critics. I support the sentiments behind it, but really dislike the slogan.

Anonymous wrote:It is remarkable that people so often come up with “who will respond to domestic violence?” as the counterargument here. Cops are awful at responding to it—and more likely to commit it than people in other occupations, partly because of the traits police work selects for, partly because of how the job brutalizes them, and partly because when they do it, they get away with it.

Pick a better thing to pearl-clutch about.

+1. The amount of faux outrage for victims of domestic violence, when it finally “benefits” some people to finally care, is nauseating.

Re: domestic violence, PP is right that police are dramatically more likely to be abusers than any other profession, which means that their victims are the least likely to get any sort of meaningful justice. link: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/

I'd also defer to folks who have done a lot of thinking about this. From an interview:

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/06/police-abolition-george-floyd/

Without police, or with drastically scaled back police forces, how does the picture change for people and communities who don’t use the police or trust them?

For those folks, the picture changes because hopefully they won’t have so many problematic things to deal with. The reality is a lot of people just don’t call the police as it is because they feel like it’s just going to make their lives worse. That is a deep truth. And so what we want to do is not just to leave them on their own, we want to try and start fixing their problems. Like domestic violence, which goes grossly underreported because huge numbers of survivors feel that getting the police involved is just going to make the situation worse. Police come, either do nothing, arrest both parties, or arrest the man whom the woman was financially dependent upon. He’s pissed off when he gets out of jail, and he comes and beats her up again. Where’s the community resource center? Where are the supports for families, so that maybe they can fix their problems? Where are the outlets for women so that they can live independently, to get away from an abuser?

^^. On newest = unnuanced

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree it's a terrible slogan. No one that isn't already firmly on your side and well-informed is going to understand that it doesn't actually mean to get rid of the police altogether, especially when they are already primed by their criticism of cancel culture to interpret it that way. And no one is going to go google the slogan to make sure they're interpreting it correctly!

It's incredibly counterproductive. Just like the Abolish ICE slogan. People thought that meant we should just throw open the borders.

As I watch and applaud the incredible ads being made against Trump by Never Trump Republican political operatives, I am slack-jawed at how brilliant their messaging is and how terrible ours is.

It's especially frustrating now as public opinion among the great majority of Americans, including white people and moderates, is on the side of the protesters. People seem to finally understand and support what Black Lives Matter means. Why must we shoot ourselves in the foot now?

Agree!! Whoever came up with the slogan Defund the Police is not in PR. We need good clear messaging. On the same note, while I love the Ads created by The Lincoln Project, Republicans Against Trump, and The Midas Touch; why can’t the DNC create such effective messages and Ads?

I don't know...Trump won the WH with "Build the Wall" and "Ban Muslims". Maybe simple, un-nuanced messaging is exactly the right thing.

I agree that simple on newest messages are the right thing. Defund the police is not simple, hence the misunderstanding of what it means. Clear, clean, short messages are most effective

It is remarkable that people so often come up with “who will respond to domestic violence?” as the counterargument here. Cops are awful at responding to it—and more likely to commit it than people in other occupations, partly because of the traits police work selects for, partly because of how the job brutalizes them, and partly because when they do it, they get away with it.

Pick a better thing to pearl-clutch about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree it's a terrible slogan. No one that isn't already firmly on your side and well-informed is going to understand that it doesn't actually mean to get rid of the police altogether, especially when they are already primed by their criticism of cancel culture to interpret it that way. And no one is going to go google the slogan to make sure they're interpreting it correctly!

It's incredibly counterproductive. Just like the Abolish ICE slogan. People thought that meant we should just throw open the borders.

As I watch and applaud the incredible ads being made against Trump by Never Trump Republican political operatives, I am slack-jawed at how brilliant their messaging is and how terrible ours is.

It's especially frustrating now as public opinion among the great majority of Americans, including white people and moderates, is on the side of the protesters. People seem to finally understand and support what Black Lives Matter means. Why must we shoot ourselves in the foot now?

Agree!! Whoever came up with the slogan Defund the Police is not in PR. We need good clear messaging. On the same note, while I love the Ads created by The Lincoln Project, Republicans Against Trump, and The Midas Touch; why can’t the DNC create such effective messages and Ads?

I don't know...Trump won the WH with "Build the Wall" and "Ban Muslims". Maybe simple, un-nuanced messaging is exactly the right thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m also curious what the suggested alternative for public safety is if we “defund” the police.

After school programs reduce gang involvement and ultimately less crime/increase public safety.

Shouldn't we have more after school programs and activities for teens?

Of course! I’m asking what happens when someone robs a bank.

No you aren't.

Huh?? If you “defund” the police, thus eliminating or limiting their duties, who handles public safety concerns like bank robberies or domestic violence incidents?

As we've been told so many times wrt our President, take the statement seriously, not literally.

Several PPs have said that the idea is to reduce funds to LE in favor of other community-based programs that get at the heart of the link between racism and crime and disadvantage.

It means that in the past 4 decades, the cost of policing in the US has tripled and is now $115 billion.

To put that in perspective, in 2012 HUD best instead that it would cost $20 billion to END HOMELESSNESS in the US.

Our priorities are all jacked up.