"Defund" - such a poor choice, right?

[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.