"Defund" - such a poor choice, right?

[qwlauren35]

I have heard lots of people say why the word is "bad". But I wonder if those are black people or white people. So, I'll try a poll.

17 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I am white - I think "defund" is a poor choice of words.
	12 (71%)
	I am white - I think "defund" is accurate, and no other word is as accurate.
	1 (6%)
	I am a person of color - I think "defund" is a poor choice of wordsk.
	2 (12%)
	I am a person of color - I think "defund" is accurate, and no other word is as accurate.
	2 (12%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[SoonerPride]

1. I have a severe issue with people trying to tell black activists which words are acceptable

There is a long history of whites (well meaning, perhaps) telling black activists "I support you BUT this language bothers ME" or "I support you BUT this action (such as kneeling) is problematic and you should try something else."

The constant paternalism of what is and isn't acceptable messaging almost always comes from white allies. What makes them uncomfortable is a bridge too far.

Well maybe that is the point. DEFUND is a provocative word. Maybe it should be dealt with on its face.

And maybe, just maybe, a movement born from and marshaled by black activists on the ground shouldn't be massaged into what makes whites comfortable and what they find palatable.

[qwlauren35]

5. I have heard so many reasons.

Takes too much explaining.

Isn't accurate - reduce budget is not de-fund.

Gives GOP talking points.

Not during an election year.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And this from our "allies". The ones who came up with "Blue Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter" because "Black Lives Matter" didn't work for them.

Took too much explaining.
Isn't accurate - all lives matter.
Gives the GOP talking points.
Not during an election year.


Sometimes our allies don't know how to be allies. If they can't choose how to define us, they don't want to be a part of the solution.

It's like Americans standing up for France, but getting upset because their slogan is in French, and they can't understand it. And of course, the xenophobes would jump all over it because it's not in English...

[SoonerPride]

7. Exactly. Thank you.

[RobinA]

25. One Group

does not own the upcoming election, so if they, or anybody else of any color, are going to do things that could potentially affect the election, they can expect to hear push back from the people who think whatever they are doing could be a problem. Expect that whoever Joe Biden picks for VP, plenty of people will have something to say about it. It's the nature of the beast.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. The problem with "defund" is that it is a reactive term.

It sees the problem, but doesn't really suggest a solution.

I prefer proactive terms.

[maxsolomon]

17. "Rethink Police Budgets"?

Rolls right off the tongue, no?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Not saying it has to be "rethink"

I personally like "reform" the best, because it has a double meaning.

"Reform" as to improve

or

"Re-form" as to restructure.

It's simple, recognizable, and won't make people think we're advocating for eliminating all public law enforcement.

[maxsolomon]

28. It is accurate, but feels milquetoast.

They've been "reforming" for what seems like forever now, but keep killing people they don't need to kill.

[RobinA]

27. Yes It Does Suggest A Solution

When I first heard it yesterday morning in reference to the Minneapolis vote to defund their police, I thought, "Sure, get rid of the police department, that'll work." So obviously it does suggest a solution. I then thought that I wasn't going to worry too much about that, because no one is going to defund their police department, it's just a reaction. Then later in the news cast when it became clear that everybody was suddenly saying they were going to defund their police departments, it hit me that this was an unforced error, favor Trump.

[milestogo]

3. Well its better than "defend the police" but thats about it.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. So far "defund" has had to be explained to everyone. And if you're explaining, you're losing.

[SoonerPride]

6. Nothing is ever good enough.

Thanks for your concern. It is noted.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. But if you spend too much time getting defensive about your messaging...

...as opposed to actually focusing on the message, is it really worth it?

Same thing with people who insist on referring to themselves or their WWII vet grandfather as "Antifa" because it means "anti-fascist" and they're not going to let other people ruin that word by associating it with a non-existent bogeyman organization...I mean, sure, but if we're going to spend so much time and energy about a term that, frankly, sucks, as opposed to simply laying out a more comprehensive message...we're not seeing the forest through the trees.

[SoonerPride]

10. Maybe if people would focus on the issue at hand instead of attacking word choices...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Okay, I see we have a chicken and the egg thing going on here.

All I can say is that ideas are always going to be bigger than any individual words, so if an individual word doesn't have the intended effect you thought it would, don't be afraid to sacrifice it in the interest of the bigger idea.

In other words...they can't all be winners.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

16. Choosing the most effective words helps with that focus.

[SoonerPride]

19. and once again whites come to the rescue to tell blacks what messages are palatable to THEM.

"I'm here to help you with messaging because what you are saying is too radical.........."

=

tone it down.

[brush]

29. You again? I'm black and I think "defund the police" is the stupidest...

word choice ever. Why give trump/repugs such ammo for their ads and tweets that strongly suggests getting rid of the police. That's just the kind of red meat they love to feed to voters.

It's a stone cold loser of a phrase.

[PunkinPi]

8. I'm with Rep Clyburn on this one -- reform.

Also, I think the police need to be demilitarized.

Link to tweet

[qwlauren35]

11. Can't agree.

Reform has been tried. Body cams, sensitivity training. IT DOES NOT WORK.

Taking away their money would change the entire dynamic. They would have to make very, very hard choices. They would have to downsize. They would have to give up their weapons arsenal. They would have to give up cars and go back to beat patrolling.

SO MANY CHANGES would be FORCED by Defunding.

I can think of no other action that would be as powerful.

Remember the woman who tried to get the birdwatcher in trouble? She got FIRED. It's a wake-up call. Hurt people FINANCIALLY and they will get the point.

If you do NOT hurt people financially, they do not get the point.

DEFUNDING FORCES CHANGE.

If you can think of anything else that would FORCE change, let me know.

[cayugafalls]

21. I agree with you. We have been "reforming" the police since the 60's and nothing has changed.

It has gotten worse. The police are now militarized because of all the money they get.

They get to keep money seized from drugs which should go back into the community to support social programs NOT the police buying more military gear.

You said it best. Defunding Forces Change.

We need to Define and Defend the phrase Defund Police.

[PunkinPi]

26. I'm not saying defunding wouldn't occur within reform.

Last edited Wed Jun 10, 2020, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think communities should be spending 1/3 of their budget on police, however I think the trouble occurs with how "defund" is defined. What does it mean? Kind of like how M4A was defined in different ways depending on who was being asked.

I think there needs to be a reimagining of what the role police play in society. I don't think they should be militarized (that would be a specific way to cut funding). And I believe in reallocating resources to support things like housing, education, health/mental health, access to capital, etc. is imperative.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

12. +1

[cayugafalls]

13. Why not "define and defend" the definition?

Defund means redistribution of the some funds currently set aside for the Police to bolster social services.

Defund means reducing funds, not elimination.

Defund means reallocation.

Defund means reform.

Just some ideas...

Define and Defend. We need to stop running away from perceived ghosts.

[brooklynite]

14. "Defund the Police" is as poor a slogan as "Democratic Socialism"

Telling people it means something different than what the words themselves means doesn't sell.

[brush]

31. Agreed 100%. It's red meat for trump to feed to voters...

as the first thought it implies is "get rid of the police".

[rgbecker]

18. I'm thinking "Disband".

Its a band of thugs, trained to intimidate and harass Black people. Disband them. If you can't do it because you are afraid of what they will do you...couch the move in economics...maybe get a few anti good government GOP people behind you. They love to cut taxes!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

22. I like "abolish," myself -- I learned about police abolition from black women, and I follow their

leadership in the movement.

[Maeve]

23. I am white and it's not my call

My job is to explain to my friends who don't like the word what the goal is.

[RobinA]

30. You Have No Stake

in the upcoming election? You don't have a police department where you live? Why isn't this everybody's call?

[Maeve]

37. Of course I have a stake--that's not what I said

I said the wording isn't my call--I don't get to tell BLM or any other group how to protest and I don't get to frame the wording; if it doesn't work, it will change, but it simply is not my call to tell them to cater to my preferences.

[Sneederbunk]

24. It's a fine line between stupid and clever.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. The response to this thread answers the question itself.

We're arguing over the value of the word "defund" and what it could possibly mean.

Meanwhile, the right has already determined "defund" to mean "abolish" and are pushing the idea that Democrats and the left want lawless chaos.

It's a word. That's all.

No need to be married to that one word if it doesn't work for us.

And it's not really working for us.

[qwlauren35]

33. Um...

Check the poll. The word is working for black people. 5:2.

Why can't white people just support us?

Why does it have to be "the white way"?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. I don't think the word "defund" is a black or white term.

So trying to turn it into one just misses the mark.

It's a word. It's not a movement and if it's not getting its intended effect, we don't have to continue to be saddled with it out of some misguided notion of principle.

[Zambero]

35. Too many differering interpretations to be effective

Phrases or slogans need to communicate precisely what is being said. In the era of the 60's civil rights movement, "Equal rights for all citizens" left no doubt as to what was being put forth. Part of being on the right side of history includes a careful choice of words in order to maximize their impact. Ambiguous slogans lead to a wide range of conclusions, diffuse energy. and more often than not play into the hands of propagandists, as is happening these days on Fox News.

[ancianita]

36. "Defund the police" is a Russian bot wedge used across platforms right now; so yeah, wrong choice.

The whole process across 50 states will take way more thought and effort than bumper sticker labels that dissipate focus on restructuring right now.

From the Guardian:

In LA, Black Lives Matter has been pushing for a “people’s budget” that allocates just 5.7% of the general fund to law enforcement, instead of the 51% of the mayor’s plan.

More broadly, longstanding abolitionist groups, such as Critical Resistance and MPD 150, argue that the cities should not be looking for minor savings and cuts, but should be fundamentally reducing the scale and size of the police force and dismantle the traditional law enforcement system. That can start with finding “non-police solutions to the problems poor people face”, such as counselors responding to mental health calls and addiction experts responding to drug abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/05/defunding-the-police-us-what-does-it-mean

[Caliman73]

38. I think that the fact that support hangs on a "Slogan" is sad.

This has been a problem in my mind for awhile but this issue has brought the problem into clear relief. I had a similar reaction to the idea of "defund" the police, thinking, "We can't just take all police away!" Then I looked at what it actually means and I thought,

"Yes, it makes sense to reallocate funding that goes to more police and more weapons, and more punishment for crime, to social programs that have a proven record of reducing crime by addressing factors that facilitate the decision to commit crimes"

Then I thought, "Shit, that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker so people are going to misunderstand, not take the time to look at the issue, and they are going to attack it"

Then I thought, "Why?" Why is it that people need information dumbed down and put into catchy slogans? Are they stupid? Lazy? or more generously, Maybe they are overwhelmed and just trying to survive and don't have the time to look into things?

Then I thought, but some of these people know all about who got drafted to the Patriots this year and how their new defense will stack up against other teams in their division. They know about how the salary cap for their franchise of choice will affect their chances of going to the championship. Some of the people know all about the controversies in the lives of celebrities and upcoming projects and fashion statements, etc... which I guess is more fun than concentrating on whether it is better to continue funding and buying bigger guns and decommissioned Striker vehicles and MRAPs for police OR to invest in community services that deal with the factors that contribute to crime.

We have all been conditioned to believe that BAD people commit crime so they MUST be punished and we must be protected by police. The problem is that while many good people are police, their mission is NOT to protect us, but to enforce the laws. The further problem is that they appear AFTER crime has been committed. Sure, they patrol, but that is not their primary function. They Respond to calls when a crime has or may be occurring. I have had the fortune to work with very helpful law enforcement people. I have also had the experience of getting harassed by law enforcement for no apparent reason other than my appearance. People don't seem to want to believe that police would hassle people for no other reason than their appearance, or that they would deliberately use more force for said reason, or that they would cover up misconduct, or ... because we NEED them to protect us from the BAD people who commit crimes.

The problem is that crime is complicated. When a 7 year old is asked whether a man who steals medicine as the only way to prevent his child from dying, is doing something bad, they will almost always say yes, and that the man should be punished and put in jail. A 7 year old thinks in concrete terms because their brain is not fully developed. They do not have the ability to put themselves in the mindset of an otherwise honorable and law abiding person who is put into a "no win" situation, and has to choose the "lesser evil". They cannot consider whether it is moral for the drug company to price medication out of the reach of people thus putting them in that situation. No. Stealing is bad and must be punished. It seems that we may be stuck in that same mentality.

The slogan is bad because people can't or won't understand it. It is bad because people will deliberately misuse it to convince people who maybe think that police brutality is bad and we should maybe try alternatives to more police, more training, and other defuse concepts to stop a problem that is baked into our history and our national psyche? That is the problem? Bad slogan? Not, bad understanding?

I do not know how to solve the problem of the lack of critical thinking, but it is really a problem that we need to look into and try to solve. I will surely try to do my part in solving it.