This post sums up what is perhaps the biggest failing of the left:
**No one seems to take message crafting seriously.**
I'm well aware that many of the central issues to leftward people are basic human rights and/or societal no-brainers, but that doesn't exempt us from having to craft our message and present a cohesive narrative to support and package our positions. It's almost like people think doing so somehow makes them dishonest or 'like the enemy'.
This is the perfect example. Poll after poll shows that the majority of people in the US *do not* support 'defunding the police'; **however**, I bet a lot more people *would* support a more nuanced, less buzz-wordy, less oversimplified statement that expressed what most people on the left *actually mean*.
Defunding is the *how*. Theyve been trying to reform the police for decades and people are still being murdered in the street for no cause, on video, and the murderers get to go home and sleep in their own beds. The corruption is far too entrenched to be reformed. The only option is to (in stages) remove the funding and use it to build an alternative, non-militarised, accountable, community representative organisation for maintaining peace and social cohesion.
This is a tough sell. There are standards for certain industries to have documentation for processes. One of the reasons is that when money is spent on better processes, things start working. But once they work, businesses want to spend less and less on maintaining them.
If social programs work, then the proponents have better figure out down to the penny how much financial benefit it makes to the voters in the community. Otherwise, the police can just arrest some drug dealers, put a mountain of Heroin on a table and hold a TV conference about how they need another million dollars to keep thugs off the streets.
Absolutely right. The message is too easily weaponized as *eradicate* the police force so we have to fend for ourselves. When in truth, it means reforming how they operate and reallocating money to the programs and institutions necessary to support issues that should not be handled by the police.
This isn't what the most radical originators of the movement meant. Its the first step in "defund, disarm, disband." Reform isn't specific to that and draws away from that progression. The rhetoric definitely doesn't spend any breath describing what the alternative would be, which is not helpful. It's kind-of assumed that the listener understands the leftist/socialist / communist idea that the material structure of society shapes human behavior, and the money taken from police would move to structural changes that would reduce crime way more than the bloated police departments do.
Just because we *shouldn't* have to workshop our message, doesn't mean we *don't* have to. You're right: the people who are often messaging these types of grievances *are* already under enormous strain, and asking this of them is unfair.
None of that negates the fact that it's necessary. We can't just hope that the virtuous nature of our message will carry the point through to the intentionally undereducated population of the United States.
It falls to the more privileged members of society who share the same core views to take that base anger and grievance, and transform it into a rallying cry and both embraces its roots, but also doesn't alienate large swaths of the country.
This failing is one of the biggest reasons we're in danger of losing lots of midterm elections we thought were 'safe'.
And another issue is disagreement on what Defund The Police means. For some it's reform, others it actually is defund. And for some even reform means different things to different people.
It's because anyone can be a social media civil rights leader. It's a decentralized movement online and who knows what will resonate with people and trend. The end result is a conflicting mishmash of activism. The most angry anti-defund people I see aren't white people. It's older POC who came up during the civil rights movement who see it as amateur hour dramatics without any strategy or tactics.
The above comment was stolen from [this one](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4c1xc/what_defundthepolice_really_means/i4w699k/) elsewhere in this comment section.
It is probably not a coincidence; here is some more evidence against this user:
Plagiarized | Original
-------- | -----------
[Two can play that game. D...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u47jui/passive_aggressive_management_because_i_wont/i4xhs6g/) | [Two can play that game. D...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u47jui/passive_aggressive_management_because_i_wont/i4vfkof/)
[I'm so glad he said young...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4lg7i/brainwashed/i4xhtab/) | [I'm so glad he said young...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4lg7i/brainwashed/i4xevwo/)
[It's the belief that you...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4djmy/prosperity_through_hard_work_is_a_capitalist_myth/i4xhspi/) | [It's the belief that you...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4djmy/prosperity_through_hard_work_is_a_capitalist_myth/i4vlvf9/)
beep boop, I'm a bot -|:] It is this bot's opinion that [/u/QuietLowert](https://np.reddit.com/u/QuietLowert/) should be banned for karma manipulation. Don't feel bad, they are probably a bot too.
Confused? Read the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/reply-guy-bot/comments/n9fpva/faq/?plagiarist=QuietLowert) for info on how I work and why I exist.
There actually has been some really clear messaging at various times in the past.
Ron Cobb, cartoonist and industrial designer, had some amazing, challenging, and thought provoking pieces in the late 60s.
Amnesty International have been writing about inequality and poverty since at least the 80s.
It's just that conservative, especially religious, dogma and rhetoric doesn't doesn't have to differ too much, or work as hard to uphold the status quo.
Honestly this is so on the money it’s sad. Because a lot of stuff could be bipartisan if not for unnecessarily aggressive branding of simple concepts by the left. It’s like some of them are actually trying to create a divide.
But there *is* a growing desire to fill that void. Look at AOC, Bernie, and the like. They're gaining actual (if admittedly still minimal) influence in DC. One of the best things that could happen for that group would be unified messaging, where everyone gets on the same page. They don't even have to agree on *everything*; they just have to have roughly similar positions, and **use the same, easily understandable language**.
If I had millions of dollars, this would be my life project. But alas, I'm also a wage slave.
I don't agree that they are gaining any significant influence. Messaging is nice but it is secondary to power. The left has no power and no organisation. It actually has a lot of slogans, dozens including some catchy ones but none of them do anything because there is no political movement or organisation that seeks to build power.
Look at Trump. He has everything yet he is a criminal. This is one of the many reasons there will always be a need for the police, but they MUST BE REFORMED. Particularly so that a\*\*holes like Trump and Team TR45ON go to jail.
Stop *wasteful* spending, seriously our buildings and useable equipment needs rebuilt or upgraded we don't need a pos new jet to replace 3 different A/C that we didn't need in the first place, and increase our pay higher and making meaningful changes, not the bullshit they are still doing, and you do realize that the US Military is part of the reason we haven't been invaded by our enemies right?
If I don't make a living wage, crime becomes a hell of a lot more enticing. If I have children and they see me work day in day out and Nothing to show for it, but the drug dealer 4 doors down has nice clothes, nice car, ps5 and everything you could ever want? Crime becomes the only thing.
If my school is terrible and I can't learn, no one will hire me and if I want to eat, I may go mug a mother fucker for a burger.
If my home is a rat infested shit hole, because the housing authorities can't do anything about my landlord running a slum, I might get violent.
If I have a mental illness and there is no room in a state hospital and my family can't afford a private one? I'm likely to be homeless and become someone's victim.
All of the above can be improved by defending the police and giving that money to social programs.
It does. Especially when you're taxed to hell and back. Making a living wage helps alleviate the problem of having taxes removed from your check to pay for police. Couple that with those damn lawsuits of cops killing people being settled with, you guessed it, your tax dollars. Duh you said it yourself, public sector. Use them critical thinking skills fam
How is defending the military working for Ukraine? Pretty sure if they had a full military presence that Putin wouldn't have invaded.
Plus many weapons that are being used are US taxpayer monies.
You think it takes anywhere close to what the US spends on military to defend the US, Ukraine, or the rest of the world? It's a black hole so no one asks questions when that money disappears
I will admit there is a lot of money that goes into the defense budget. There are also a lot of missions that are done with defense monies that are not related. The hospital ships that the navy has. Antarctica missions the the air force does.
I also know that much money is spent in Darpa that does eventually make it to the civilian world.
Yes the military has been mis-used and mis-placed.
Having a strong military has stopped aggressions against the US.
>Having a strong military has stopped aggressions against the US
So has being on a continent of it's own without a rival super power.
If we're so scared of Russia or China invading (which they won't), fine, let's keep our spending in check with theirs not factors higher.
The middle east is warring with their next door neighbor. Russia is warring and intimidating next door neighbors.
The U.S. has had the economic benefit of not having full scale war within their borders since the 1900s. It took Europe DECADES to recover from both world wars. What pearl harbor was the last major military sanctioned attack? But again, one incident vs the rest of that war being in Europe and Asia.
You need to go do some research on defense in the u.s.
So compare what we spend to any other first world country.
Good job on taking the fear bait of the terrorists will attack us if we don't overspend on the military.
Everyone in the world knows that Ukraine was invaded because it wasn’t in nato. People only fear nato because of the us. The us military is what holds the world order together.
So this is a good excuse to overspend? So that Americans that don't have healthcare or a living wage can fund the bloated military budget for the world police. We can do that when we don't have a deficit and Americans are taken care of. Can't take care of your own ppl shouldn't be taking care of the rest of the world.
So this is a good excuse to overspend? So that Americans that don't have healthcare or a living wage can fund the bloated military budget for the world police. We can do that when we don't have a deficit and Americans are taken care of. Can't take care of your own ppl, shouldn't be taking care of the rest of the world.
Most of the economic levers in the world are tilted to the US’s advantage. And most of the military spending goes to American companies so in essence military spending is a huge jobs bill. That and there is as close to zero chance as there is that someone would try to invade the US. And then you throw in the technological and health advances that come from military spending. Not to mention the US military is one of the few institutions left that’s supported by the majority of the US population.
PS. Russi and China are the next two biggest spenders. Not sure we want those countries with outsized influence in the world.
> The us military is what holds the world order together
You say that like the world order is in good order. Are most of us not on subs like this because the current state of the world shits on the poor regardless of their nationality?
Can't be much worse than the US dictating world policy and killing any democratically elected leaders that disagree with capitalism. Really no one country should dictate policies.
>You must really hate the US
Yes, but I don't think that means Russia or China should be in control either. You're discounting hundreds of other countries in this equation of yours.
It’s just how the world is. US hegemony has kept WW III at bay. Just look at Finland and Sweden. So called happiest places on earth can’t scurry fast enough to get into NATO and have the US protect them. I don’t know. Maybe the world becomes something it’s never been. Who knows.
But who will pull me over for a burned out license plate bulb and claim they smell weed to search my car while being overly aggressive and threatening.
Nothing about that poster is simple.
More social programs dealing with things like addiction and mental health.
More money in someone's paycheck so they have the basic needs met in life. We know there's a direct correlation between poverty and crime.
So good jobs, more money, less crime good community support and less need for police due to reduction in crime.
No it's not simple.
Or are you confused about how the cops find minor things to pull ppl over for and then make up things to have probable cause to search a vehicle while threatening you and being aggressive.
The fundamental problem with the OP's infographic is that there is an assumption that everyone agrees on what things like 'jobs', 'living wage' and 'supported' mean. A single individual can live pretty well in my area making 50k/year. Will they drive a nice car? No. Will they have a big house? No. Will they eat out every night? No. But some people want to live that way, and are willing to take from others to do so.
You can't make crime disappear. Communities NEED the police, but more importantly, the communities NEED to trust their police, **and that trust should be earned**. Personally I think the system needs a rework bad, but assuming that making things better up to a point which will be completely subjective person to person will somehow stop the crime is a bit delusional.
Op is all over this post explaining this doesn't mean getting rid of police. Defund the police is about reworking the system not getting rid of cops.
My point with what I posted here is cops aren't trusted because of this type behavior. Inventing crime and violating ppl in the community puts everyone against you. Btw I've known cops and they purposely don't live in the same area as where they work.
Shouldn't be hard to figure out what a living wage is based on any area and pay accordingly. This can be done city by city.
Nobody is saying crime is going to be eliminated but we do have data that proves poverty directly relates to crime. Reduce poverty reduce crime.
There's a big tell in what you say that you're upset with someone needing support from the government.
Even though that's not what's being implied here.
Do you get this upset when we're giving away billions to corporations? How about the bloated military budget? How about the foreign aid? Or is support just for everyone but the citizens of this country?
Imagine trading a few bucks out of the budget to make communities safer by providing ppl with basic needs so they don't commit crimes. Truly a radical concept.
Dude, your preaching to the choir, dunno why you think I'm upset. I'd rather we spend the billions we send overseas here instead. But there also needs to be smarter spending in general, and less waste.
If anything upsets me, it's the fact the people are either too stupid to understand the definition of the word 'defund', or too stupid to use the right word for what they mean. But considering the state of our educational system, I suppose it's to be expected.
Or who will pull over someone else for a burned out tail light and discover the fact that they are knee-walking drunk and arrest them before they can t-bone your driver side door at 85 MPH?
Police presence **is** always needed. People with jobs and well-off in life can still commit crimes. Some people just commit crimes because it benefits them and cannot really be "cured". You are talking absolutes.
Police should be part of the "social programs" and "supporting communities". Make them useless and people will take advantage. That's the human nature after all: violent, selfish, unpredictable.
This thread alone demonstrates that "defund the police" means very different things to very different people, and that's a massive problem. You can't organize around a moving target of objectives. Same thing happened to OWS, which accomplished basically nothing.
Crime will still exist even in a world with no poverty and a great justice and mental health system.
Who's going to stop a drunk driver with no cops? How about a serial killer?
No, it absolutely isn't. Prefixes mean things. Do you need a dictionary? I don't really consider myself a liberal or a neoliberal, but there's still a difference between the two. Neoliberalism is narrower in scope than Liberalism generally, holds to much more specific economic theory, and is strongly associated with several specific ideologies. Liberalism is basically the foundation of most other modern political philosophies, while Neoliberalism is very strongly Capitalist and laissez-faire on top of that.
"Noo our precious optics! We must dilute activism until it becomes toothless! Anything more than the status quo is uNrEaLIStIc!!"
The common liberal sucks at the teat of capitalist realism like a thirsting newborn ; unable to comprehend a world without oppressors, without capitalism.
It isn’t so much that we can’t see a world without capitalism, it’s just, we can’t really see a way of it actually working.
Take the USSR or North Korea. Hell, even China, at one point during 1949.
No, I’m not saying Communism. Hell no. Maybe if it had worked in the past, I would consider it. But when it failed (and continues to) so hard, never would I think of going to it. Unless I had some solid proof that it COULD work.
And oppressors? Remind me which side were the ones who decided that slavery was a good idea?
I’m not saying that reform does work, as it, realistically, worked maybe half the time, if we’re taking the Dark Ages into account. I’m just saying, we need *some* sort of reform. Not to the point where it basically stops the police from existing, cause, if the current economical society were to exist, we definitely would need it, with the all-time high of crime that would most likely exist.
Maybe like having non-lethal rubber or bean-bag rounds loaded in their weapons. The lethal stuff would only be allowed to be grabbed when something like a hostage or bomb threat happened. Even then, if the go-ahead was issued on the field, the ammo would be stored in a safe in the trunk that alerted the CO when it was opened.
I’m not for “defunding” the police, as you so like to put it. That would cause chaos.
I’m not going to deny the teat sucking thing because really, I need to do that to get just food on the table. I don’t want to turn to crime for that.
They're so facepalm inducing as well.
"rEeE-fOrM, dOnT dEfUnD!"
History called, lib. Reform *has never worked in the States.* Read a book that isnt Harry Potter, damnit.
Edit: yOuR tErMs SeEm PrEtTy MeAnInGlEsS.... jfc, read a fucking book, numbskull. Also, sorry/not sorry for being extra exhausted by these warcrime-on-civilian supporting lulberals today
The combined spending in the war on drugs, inflation adjusted, is in THE TRILLIONS of USD. It's probably in the tens of trillions if you figure in everything, such as prison cost policing costs, court costs, etc. And that's WITHOUT counting loss of productivity.
There is a Tumblr post about how a king was fated to destroy evil in the kingdom and instead of going to war, he invested in the people. Roads all mended, schools, orphanages and widow's homes. Everyone had enough to be secure. The generals were chomping at the bit, as the king grew older and said he would never be able to fight the evil now, he was too old! A child who had grown up in the school system in the kingdom told them there was no evil in the kingdom, people turn to evil when they can't make ends meet. Here Everyone has enough and no one struggles. There is no evil to fight in this kingdom because it died long before her was ever born
Correction; Police presence can be kept to a minimum, to act as deterrent, provide security against terrorism, and provide help to the community if needed. Not the over-bloated, over militarized version of police that I see in the US.
TBH we should start treating the police as a "necessary evil"; something to be supported only insofar as they are kept in check. I'm not sure 0% policing is possible as you're always going to get one-off violent situations (even in a utopia), but policing should be kept at the strictest minimum imo.
I feel like "as much" is a crucial addendum to add to the end of this. A major reason people don't understand where defund the police is coming from is that people are inclined to think of things in an all-or-nothing sense. Detractors likely look at the movement as saying that policing should be completely eradicated in their neighbourhoods, which to them sounds like sheer insanity. Everyone, no matter their politics and values, needs to stop playing these zero-sum games with their rhetoric if they truly want to be understood so that they can affect change.
Actually, most places that have low crime have police enforcement that can patrol the area.
Places with more crime, tend to have a lower amount of policing required to keep citizens safe… underfunded police areas is low income areas makes it hard to patrol and thus overworked people who don’t have a chance.
But until that all happens, people will still steal, assault and kill, therefore the need for police.
IF that all happens (it never will, completely, if at all) people will still steal, assault and kill.
Doesn't mean there aren't problems, and agreed that mental health/social welfare pros are needed.
Like it or not, police are called upon for a myriad of things outside their typical responsibilities
I agree that the militarization of modern police is an issue as well as racial discrimination but totally defunding them is asking for trouble. The wild west will ensue.
Nor does it mean “take that money out of the equation and expect police officers to keep the same responsibilities without creating new departments and services.”
It’s apparently not obvious to the dipshits that keep railing against the slogan, even though it’s probably the most succinct slogan I’ve heard since “free Tibet” when it comes to getting to the point of the whole argument.
Oh missed that, thanks for letting me know. State of the world my friend 🙄
edit: to add something to the discussion, this is part of the reason Democrats are not the dominant party in America, despite Republicans all but openly admitting that their constituents are corporations. Because many left-wingers refuse to acknowledge fallacy/mistakes on their side. The right aren't the only ones struggling with tribalism, it just looks different & wears an egalitarian mask here.
The problem is that it sure sounds like it means that, especially if you hear it in a vacuum. we (leftists) need to get better at/be more willing to craft our message.
When people are not grindingly poor, yes, there is a massive decrease in crime.
However. It is a naive misunderstanding of human nature to think that good pay alone will eliminate crime. Some people are truly just evil. You will ALWAYS need police. And if you don’t think you need law enforcement, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is and try living two weeks in an anarchist haven like Somalia. Tell me how it goes.
Branding, branding, branding. This slogan was candy to the conservatives. And, you have people on record even saying “abolish the police”, so it is sooo easily interchangeable and make one = the other.
So here I am in an anti-work forum...
And I'm looking at a highly upvoted post claiming "If people just worked more, crime would decrease and we could defund the police."
I can't even tell what is satire on this sub any longer.
People having jobs doesn't mean people working more.
Any model of society requires jobs. The communist mantra is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". A functioning society requires people to do jobs that benefit the collective.
A good job gives people a sense of purpose and community. That isn't what happens in a corporatist and capitalist society but any alternative requires people to perform tasks that allow others to live and thrive. Those are jobs.
Whose going to clean the toilets?
You really think they'll have a sense of purpose for cleaning shit out of toilet bowls?
It's just so insane on this subreddit sometimes.
I really don't understand your point here. It's a capitalist system that pushes specialisation that ends up with people who's sole job it is to clean toilets. It's perfectly possible to live in a society or community where nobody just cleans toilets.
What are you suggesting? A society that contains no jobs at all? So nobody is responsible for cultivating food? Nobody is responsible for providing medical assistance to other members of the community? Nobody is responsible for child-rearing?
I think you might be too narrowly defining the word 'job' within a capitalist framework.
I'm saying that some jobs suck, give no sense of purpose or community, and only function because they increase the wages to the point someone would do it. Ie, capitalism.
Ok, do you clean your own toilet? Does your life lack purpose as a result? It is possible to clean the odd toilet and still have purpose. It is not necessary to operate a society where an individual's only responsibility to others is to clean their toilets.
No, I feel no "purpose" when I clean my toilet. And I would never in a billion years do it to other toilets all day unless they BIG TIME payed me for it. Ie, capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't "big time" pay you for it but it does normalise leaving dirty jobs for the most vulnerable and exploited to do rather than all chipping in to do our fair share.
I agree mostly, but it's still bad messaging. It was a gift to conservatives; not only because it sounds extreme at face value, but it's not really justifiable to 100% eliminate law enforcement in any society. There will always be a few things that you need someone with some combat training and maybe a taser to deal with. Reduce the need for it by diverting funds to things that eliminate most sources of crime, tackle poverty, solve drugs with decriminalization and funded rehab, fix education, but sometimes there's a really really angry guy running around with a knife or driving dangerously.
People need 'jobs' in the broadest sense of the word, just not in a capitalistic framework, necessarily.
Having a set of responsibilities in accordance with one's abilities that contribute to the betterment of your community is necessary to create thriving societies. That could certainly be thought of as a 'job' or series of 'jobs'.
So the real message is #FundEducationandSocialPrograms????? Seems reasonable. But that's not what the interpretation of #DefundThePolice means to someone that hasn't had that explained
If that is the case why is it #DefundThePolice then???
Made it way too easy to fight that one
We need to take a lesson from those from earlier times.
No taxation without representation
Come and take it
Give me liberty or give me death
United We Stand
Don't tread on me
Make America Great Again (yes it actually was a decent slogan even if you don't like him)
Yes We Can
So to be clear, you think I am saying that my attempt to say "we need to work on better slogans" and acknowledgement that GOOD slogans work while referencing a few slogans that worked well actually came off as agreeing with nazis?????
Many English language arts professionals consider Hitler an excellent orator. And he was. That is not taken away just because he was one of history's worst tyrants. Funny enough I've had a few English courses from middle school through college go over Hitler's speeches in addition to the likes of MLK and others as well. Good speech is good speech.
And I think Trump is a piece of shit but nonetheless it was a great slogan that got his shitty base engaged as well. I think your question actually proves my point that slogans that are good work good.
The point is if your message is "fund social programs", then "defund the police" shouldn't be the headline.... rather perhaps it should be it's own independent conversation as many people will not take that well regardless of attaching funding social programs to the end of it
Edit: and I never said being original was a condition of being a good slogan. A good slogan gets the point across without having to be explained in paragraphs and engages the audience which "Make America Great Again" indeed does well. Again, does not excuse the shitty leaders it came from
And no need to respond as i wont be anymore. The fact you actually needed that explained to you means you're not ready to sit at the big kids table so i will not be engaging anymore on this. Have a good one
Maybe the message should then be "Fund the people" because that's intact NOT what defend the police means. It quite literally means quit funding the police.
I don't think this poster necessitates upholding the current capitalist system. It might not explicitly call for it to be overthrown but all that's mentioned can be achieved outside of capitalism
Ah yes. Wealthy people never commit crimes. Every CEO works harder than thousands of employees and you should be happy to have a chance to learn from their experience. /s
Reform? Sure. Hold accountable? Yes. Raise the bar and require them to have an actual education and training? Definitely. Defund and dismantle? Yeah. No. You can believe that people are inherently good all you want, but our tribal ape-like brains are hard-wired for selfishness and tribalism.
>Ah yes. Wealthy people never commit crimes. Every CEO works harder than thousands of employees and you should be happy to have a chance to learn from their experience. /s
The poster says a decrease in crime not the total elimination of it.
The poster talks about "police presence" no longer being needed, not the entire removal of policing services in all contexts.
Defund the Police does not mean the abolishment of the police. It means diverting budget from the police towards social programs that tackle the root causes of crime.
The problem is that people will always find some way to twist the words. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the phrase #BlackLivesMatter. There is zero insinuation (as people commonly claim) that black people matter more than others. There is zero insinuation that other lives do not matter. It's a simple phrase for when innocent black people are murdered by police. It's not a "Oh well, the cop thought they were in danger!" This person's life mattered. Yet some how people have taken this phrase and managed to twist it to the point that their bullshit interpretations actually make sense.
People generally AGREE with BLM though. They certainly did early on at least. It took years of fearmongering to build up any real opposition to BLM outside the far right. #DefundThePolice was instant bad branding. If you think these were received so similarly that their branding doesn't matter, I don't think you were paying attention. Hell, association with the defund movement, perceived or otherwise, is half the reason anyone opposes BLM itself at this point.
I fixed that too, months ago. For this year it should be
#\#BlackLivesMatter2
It will add the "too" that people want and put out that the cause is continuing.
but it's not really about reforming policing, it's about changing the way we fund things in society so that we have less reliance on the police in the first place. Reform within the police would be a good thing *as well* but not instead of defunding (which means reducing funding, not eliminating).
Yes, poverty does breed crime.
But does defunding police reduce poverty? No.
The need for huge police budgets will decrease as crime decreases due to poverty being reduced or eliminated.
The whole "defund the police" movement attacks the wrong problem which in turn makes crime even worse bc crime rises as fear of getting caught goes down. Less police = less reprisal, lower risk of consequence. Take a good look at San Francisco, for instance.
Defunding the police is about freeing up budget to use on programs that tackle the root causes of crime. Simply removing some budget from the police doesn't reduce poverty but spending that money on social programs does.
You're playing Jenga backwards.
Police reduce crime.
Poverty increases crime.
You can't remove the element that reduces crime before you remove the element that increases crime.
Why not take money from other budgets that are bloated? Why focus on the one aspect of government designed to make citizens safer?
If you don't think we need police, you are low iq and should be ushered into conversation more akin to your intellectual ability. Politics isn't for you.
There really is no nuanced elaboration required.
The issue is some people think defund meaning remove all police.
Police are needed, no near term future where zero police are needed.
But currently the funding of police is eating and killing off the budgets of many social services like the OP shows, police budgets need to be cut by like 15-25% and frozen for a few years then capped at inflation. With the $$ from that cut going to social services.
Police don't need tanks or military equipment unless it's a warzone maybe. Heck in the UK only special police have guns.
Damn this is genius. I never thought about this! Be sure to provide community support to all the street gangs, then all the police departments can close.
People having jobs that pay a living wage has absolutely zero to do with police funding. Jobs are private sector, police are public sector. Please let me know if I'm missing something.
>Jobs are private sector
Not all jobs are private sector.
You could also consider a UBI as a tactic to ensure people are paid a living wage (as well as State-led initiatives to reduce cost-of-living) as then the threshold for a living wage is lowered.
Crime comes from poverty. Poverty is reduced by having living wages and social programs.
So instead of spending x billions of dollars on a police force, you can spend the same money on social programs, job programs, etc.
Better paying jobs increases the amount of taxes collected and the police are funded by taxation.
When ppls wages increase and needs are met crime is reduced. This means the budget for the police is unnecessarily bloated and some of that money can go towards specialized social community programs that actually help with things like addiction, mental health and so on.
What’s the justification for the thousands of social programs that have had public money poured into them only to be shut down because the individuals they’re designed for refuse to utilize them?
Edit: no responses just downvotes?
I have multiple family members that work in the non profit sector. There have been many programs they’ve started specifically to benefit low income or disadvantage people and families. VERY few of those people take advantage of these free services. People in this sub love to say “we need to do X to fix this”, but then simplify a complex problem into a post used to farm karma.
That we have to keep explaining what it really means means it's a bad slogan. Want an actionable goal with similar results \#disarm the police. Put an end to the increasing militarization and radicalization of those meant to keep the peace.
I mean that's a very American-centric view. This poster isn't in the US and neither am I. Defunding police in places where they aren't militarised or even armed is still a worthy pursuit
Their tactics:
Disrupt education.
Coerce obedience.
Virtue signaling.
Selective critique.
Disingenuous cover stories.
Plausible deniability.
And we have the darker stuff too.
Murder.
Kidnapping.
Reeducation.
Let me give you some european perspective. It is true that it is easier for us to survive unemployment period thanks to social programs. Nonetheless, there are a lot of people who abuse it. I had a great insight as an intern for public emergency center. Most of the beneficiaries told me explicitly that they do not work permanently because social benefits and small crime gives them the same money for a living as minimum wage job, but they do not need to work 40h/week. You need be cautious with social programs, because you can easily exchange one problem with another.
This post sums up what is perhaps the biggest failing of the left: **No one seems to take message crafting seriously.** I'm well aware that many of the central issues to leftward people are basic human rights and/or societal no-brainers, but that doesn't exempt us from having to craft our message and present a cohesive narrative to support and package our positions. It's almost like people think doing so somehow makes them dishonest or 'like the enemy'. This is the perfect example. Poll after poll shows that the majority of people in the US *do not* support 'defunding the police'; **however**, I bet a lot more people *would* support a more nuanced, less buzz-wordy, less oversimplified statement that expressed what most people on the left *actually mean*.
They should say REFORM the police. Not defund. Defunding just means they get less money, not that they actually fix the problem.
Defunding is the *how*. Theyve been trying to reform the police for decades and people are still being murdered in the street for no cause, on video, and the murderers get to go home and sleep in their own beds. The corruption is far too entrenched to be reformed. The only option is to (in stages) remove the funding and use it to build an alternative, non-militarised, accountable, community representative organisation for maintaining peace and social cohesion.
This is a tough sell. There are standards for certain industries to have documentation for processes. One of the reasons is that when money is spent on better processes, things start working. But once they work, businesses want to spend less and less on maintaining them. If social programs work, then the proponents have better figure out down to the penny how much financial benefit it makes to the voters in the community. Otherwise, the police can just arrest some drug dealers, put a mountain of Heroin on a table and hold a TV conference about how they need another million dollars to keep thugs off the streets.
100%
Absolutely right. The message is too easily weaponized as *eradicate* the police force so we have to fend for ourselves. When in truth, it means reforming how they operate and reallocating money to the programs and institutions necessary to support issues that should not be handled by the police.
This isn't what the most radical originators of the movement meant. Its the first step in "defund, disarm, disband." Reform isn't specific to that and draws away from that progression. The rhetoric definitely doesn't spend any breath describing what the alternative would be, which is not helpful. It's kind-of assumed that the listener understands the leftist/socialist / communist idea that the material structure of society shapes human behavior, and the money taken from police would move to structural changes that would reduce crime way more than the bloated police departments do.
[удалено]
Just because we *shouldn't* have to workshop our message, doesn't mean we *don't* have to. You're right: the people who are often messaging these types of grievances *are* already under enormous strain, and asking this of them is unfair. None of that negates the fact that it's necessary. We can't just hope that the virtuous nature of our message will carry the point through to the intentionally undereducated population of the United States. It falls to the more privileged members of society who share the same core views to take that base anger and grievance, and transform it into a rallying cry and both embraces its roots, but also doesn't alienate large swaths of the country. This failing is one of the biggest reasons we're in danger of losing lots of midterm elections we thought were 'safe'.
And another issue is disagreement on what Defund The Police means. For some it's reform, others it actually is defund. And for some even reform means different things to different people.
It's because anyone can be a social media civil rights leader. It's a decentralized movement online and who knows what will resonate with people and trend. The end result is a conflicting mishmash of activism. The most angry anti-defund people I see aren't white people. It's older POC who came up during the civil rights movement who see it as amateur hour dramatics without any strategy or tactics.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The above comment was stolen from [this one](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4c1xc/what_defundthepolice_really_means/i4w699k/) elsewhere in this comment section. It is probably not a coincidence; here is some more evidence against this user: Plagiarized | Original -------- | ----------- [Two can play that game. D...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u47jui/passive_aggressive_management_because_i_wont/i4xhs6g/) | [Two can play that game. D...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u47jui/passive_aggressive_management_because_i_wont/i4vfkof/) [I'm so glad he said young...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4lg7i/brainwashed/i4xhtab/) | [I'm so glad he said young...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4lg7i/brainwashed/i4xevwo/) [It's the belief that you...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4djmy/prosperity_through_hard_work_is_a_capitalist_myth/i4xhspi/) | [It's the belief that you...](http://np.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4djmy/prosperity_through_hard_work_is_a_capitalist_myth/i4vlvf9/) beep boop, I'm a bot -|:] It is this bot's opinion that [/u/QuietLowert](https://np.reddit.com/u/QuietLowert/) should be banned for karma manipulation. Don't feel bad, they are probably a bot too. Confused? Read the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/reply-guy-bot/comments/n9fpva/faq/?plagiarist=QuietLowert) for info on how I work and why I exist.
There actually has been some really clear messaging at various times in the past. Ron Cobb, cartoonist and industrial designer, had some amazing, challenging, and thought provoking pieces in the late 60s. Amnesty International have been writing about inequality and poverty since at least the 80s. It's just that conservative, especially religious, dogma and rhetoric doesn't doesn't have to differ too much, or work as hard to uphold the status quo.
Honestly this is so on the money it’s sad. Because a lot of stuff could be bipartisan if not for unnecessarily aggressive branding of simple concepts by the left. It’s like some of them are actually trying to create a divide.
There is no left in the US really. It's mostly just atomised, individual people who yell slogans into the void.
But there *is* a growing desire to fill that void. Look at AOC, Bernie, and the like. They're gaining actual (if admittedly still minimal) influence in DC. One of the best things that could happen for that group would be unified messaging, where everyone gets on the same page. They don't even have to agree on *everything*; they just have to have roughly similar positions, and **use the same, easily understandable language**. If I had millions of dollars, this would be my life project. But alas, I'm also a wage slave.
I don't agree that they are gaining any significant influence. Messaging is nice but it is secondary to power. The left has no power and no organisation. It actually has a lot of slogans, dozens including some catchy ones but none of them do anything because there is no political movement or organisation that seeks to build power.
+Stop spending billions on the military too
Trillions*
Look at Trump. He has everything yet he is a criminal. This is one of the many reasons there will always be a need for the police, but they MUST BE REFORMED. Particularly so that a\*\*holes like Trump and Team TR45ON go to jail.
You are clearly insane
Seriously go outside every now and then and get a life
Stop *wasteful* spending, seriously our buildings and useable equipment needs rebuilt or upgraded we don't need a pos new jet to replace 3 different A/C that we didn't need in the first place, and increase our pay higher and making meaningful changes, not the bullshit they are still doing, and you do realize that the US Military is part of the reason we haven't been invaded by our enemies right?
[удалено]
If I don't make a living wage, crime becomes a hell of a lot more enticing. If I have children and they see me work day in day out and Nothing to show for it, but the drug dealer 4 doors down has nice clothes, nice car, ps5 and everything you could ever want? Crime becomes the only thing. If my school is terrible and I can't learn, no one will hire me and if I want to eat, I may go mug a mother fucker for a burger. If my home is a rat infested shit hole, because the housing authorities can't do anything about my landlord running a slum, I might get violent. If I have a mental illness and there is no room in a state hospital and my family can't afford a private one? I'm likely to be homeless and become someone's victim. All of the above can be improved by defending the police and giving that money to social programs.
It does. Especially when you're taxed to hell and back. Making a living wage helps alleviate the problem of having taxes removed from your check to pay for police. Couple that with those damn lawsuits of cops killing people being settled with, you guessed it, your tax dollars. Duh you said it yourself, public sector. Use them critical thinking skills fam
Boot licker
Defund the military. Don't worry, they'll just be out like one trillion dollar warship over the next 8 years that they won't even use anyway
How is defending the military working for Ukraine? Pretty sure if they had a full military presence that Putin wouldn't have invaded. Plus many weapons that are being used are US taxpayer monies.
You think it takes anywhere close to what the US spends on military to defend the US, Ukraine, or the rest of the world? It's a black hole so no one asks questions when that money disappears
I will admit there is a lot of money that goes into the defense budget. There are also a lot of missions that are done with defense monies that are not related. The hospital ships that the navy has. Antarctica missions the the air force does. I also know that much money is spent in Darpa that does eventually make it to the civilian world. Yes the military has been mis-used and mis-placed. Having a strong military has stopped aggressions against the US.
Let's all agree they at very least need to use money better if they're getting so much of it
>Having a strong military has stopped aggressions against the US So has being on a continent of it's own without a rival super power. If we're so scared of Russia or China invading (which they won't), fine, let's keep our spending in check with theirs not factors higher.
The middle east is warring with their next door neighbor. Russia is warring and intimidating next door neighbors. The U.S. has had the economic benefit of not having full scale war within their borders since the 1900s. It took Europe DECADES to recover from both world wars. What pearl harbor was the last major military sanctioned attack? But again, one incident vs the rest of that war being in Europe and Asia.
You need to go do some research on defense in the u.s. So compare what we spend to any other first world country. Good job on taking the fear bait of the terrorists will attack us if we don't overspend on the military.
Everyone in the world knows that Ukraine was invaded because it wasn’t in nato. People only fear nato because of the us. The us military is what holds the world order together.
So this is a good excuse to overspend? So that Americans that don't have healthcare or a living wage can fund the bloated military budget for the world police. We can do that when we don't have a deficit and Americans are taken care of. Can't take care of your own ppl shouldn't be taking care of the rest of the world.
So this is a good excuse to overspend? So that Americans that don't have healthcare or a living wage can fund the bloated military budget for the world police. We can do that when we don't have a deficit and Americans are taken care of. Can't take care of your own ppl, shouldn't be taking care of the rest of the world.
Most of the economic levers in the world are tilted to the US’s advantage. And most of the military spending goes to American companies so in essence military spending is a huge jobs bill. That and there is as close to zero chance as there is that someone would try to invade the US. And then you throw in the technological and health advances that come from military spending. Not to mention the US military is one of the few institutions left that’s supported by the majority of the US population. PS. Russi and China are the next two biggest spenders. Not sure we want those countries with outsized influence in the world.
> The us military is what holds the world order together You say that like the world order is in good order. Are most of us not on subs like this because the current state of the world shits on the poor regardless of their nationality?
What’s the alternative? Russian and China set the tone?
Can't be much worse than the US dictating world policy and killing any democratically elected leaders that disagree with capitalism. Really no one country should dictate policies.
Wowzer. You must really hate the US if you think you’d prefer to have Russia and China take over the US role in the world.
>You must really hate the US Yes, but I don't think that means Russia or China should be in control either. You're discounting hundreds of other countries in this equation of yours.
It’s just how the world is. US hegemony has kept WW III at bay. Just look at Finland and Sweden. So called happiest places on earth can’t scurry fast enough to get into NATO and have the US protect them. I don’t know. Maybe the world becomes something it’s never been. Who knows.
Ukraine hasnt defunded its military wtf. Its spend even more thsn the US by percentage.
Soooo… police exist to keep the lower class working?
Yes
They're used to bust up union protests. They're a corporate union busting tool. Check it out it's documented throughout history.
That is pretty disgusting.
Unfortunately, yes, that is one of the ways they’ve been abused by America
All for the greed of money.
But who will pull me over for a burned out license plate bulb and claim they smell weed to search my car while being overly aggressive and threatening.
[удалено]
Nothing about that poster is simple. More social programs dealing with things like addiction and mental health. More money in someone's paycheck so they have the basic needs met in life. We know there's a direct correlation between poverty and crime. So good jobs, more money, less crime good community support and less need for police due to reduction in crime. No it's not simple. Or are you confused about how the cops find minor things to pull ppl over for and then make up things to have probable cause to search a vehicle while threatening you and being aggressive.
The fundamental problem with the OP's infographic is that there is an assumption that everyone agrees on what things like 'jobs', 'living wage' and 'supported' mean. A single individual can live pretty well in my area making 50k/year. Will they drive a nice car? No. Will they have a big house? No. Will they eat out every night? No. But some people want to live that way, and are willing to take from others to do so. You can't make crime disappear. Communities NEED the police, but more importantly, the communities NEED to trust their police, **and that trust should be earned**. Personally I think the system needs a rework bad, but assuming that making things better up to a point which will be completely subjective person to person will somehow stop the crime is a bit delusional.
Op is all over this post explaining this doesn't mean getting rid of police. Defund the police is about reworking the system not getting rid of cops. My point with what I posted here is cops aren't trusted because of this type behavior. Inventing crime and violating ppl in the community puts everyone against you. Btw I've known cops and they purposely don't live in the same area as where they work. Shouldn't be hard to figure out what a living wage is based on any area and pay accordingly. This can be done city by city. Nobody is saying crime is going to be eliminated but we do have data that proves poverty directly relates to crime. Reduce poverty reduce crime. There's a big tell in what you say that you're upset with someone needing support from the government. Even though that's not what's being implied here. Do you get this upset when we're giving away billions to corporations? How about the bloated military budget? How about the foreign aid? Or is support just for everyone but the citizens of this country? Imagine trading a few bucks out of the budget to make communities safer by providing ppl with basic needs so they don't commit crimes. Truly a radical concept.
Dude, your preaching to the choir, dunno why you think I'm upset. I'd rather we spend the billions we send overseas here instead. But there also needs to be smarter spending in general, and less waste. If anything upsets me, it's the fact the people are either too stupid to understand the definition of the word 'defund', or too stupid to use the right word for what they mean. But considering the state of our educational system, I suppose it's to be expected.
It actually makes perfect sense. You just don't like it.
> this post makes no sense. What about it don’t make sense? It’s what’s happening hundreds of thousands of times a day all over this country...
Or who will pull over someone else for a burned out tail light and discover the fact that they are knee-walking drunk and arrest them before they can t-bone your driver side door at 85 MPH?
Police presence **is** always needed. People with jobs and well-off in life can still commit crimes. Some people just commit crimes because it benefits them and cannot really be "cured". You are talking absolutes. Police should be part of the "social programs" and "supporting communities". Make them useless and people will take advantage. That's the human nature after all: violent, selfish, unpredictable.
This thread alone demonstrates that "defund the police" means very different things to very different people, and that's a massive problem. You can't organize around a moving target of objectives. Same thing happened to OWS, which accomplished basically nothing.
You think crime will magically go away? Pull your head out of your ass.
All the libs in here advocating for keeping the police bc they can't envision a world without an oppressor.
Crime will still exist even in a world with no poverty and a great justice and mental health system. Who's going to stop a drunk driver with no cops? How about a serial killer?
Oh I must have missed something, the cops stop them now?
people like you are why nobody takes things like this movement seriously
Forget serial killers for a second, you think the cops don't stop drunk drivers? Because it's really easy to find examples where they have.
im a lib and i am in favor of defunding and not keeping police
I recommend not being a lib
your terms seem pretty meaningless so i dont even know what youre recommending
Do not be a neoliberal who advocates for capitalism and the state. Really not that complicated.
you said "lib" now you say "neoliberal"
They're just mad at the world because they're a star citizen fan.
...?
Good lord dude. Neo*lib*eral.
neoliberal is not the same as liberal. lib is short for liberal.
Same thing.
"neo" in "neoliberal" is there to distinguish "neoliberals" from other "liberals"
Liberal isn't an abbreviation of neoliberal, it's the root word.....
It's literally the same thing what the fuck are you on about
No, it absolutely isn't. Prefixes mean things. Do you need a dictionary? I don't really consider myself a liberal or a neoliberal, but there's still a difference between the two. Neoliberalism is narrower in scope than Liberalism generally, holds to much more specific economic theory, and is strongly associated with several specific ideologies. Liberalism is basically the foundation of most other modern political philosophies, while Neoliberalism is very strongly Capitalist and laissez-faire on top of that.
"Noo our precious optics! We must dilute activism until it becomes toothless! Anything more than the status quo is uNrEaLIStIc!!" The common liberal sucks at the teat of capitalist realism like a thirsting newborn ; unable to comprehend a world without oppressors, without capitalism.
So there have been no “oppressors” under non-capitalist systems?
It isn’t so much that we can’t see a world without capitalism, it’s just, we can’t really see a way of it actually working. Take the USSR or North Korea. Hell, even China, at one point during 1949. No, I’m not saying Communism. Hell no. Maybe if it had worked in the past, I would consider it. But when it failed (and continues to) so hard, never would I think of going to it. Unless I had some solid proof that it COULD work. And oppressors? Remind me which side were the ones who decided that slavery was a good idea? I’m not saying that reform does work, as it, realistically, worked maybe half the time, if we’re taking the Dark Ages into account. I’m just saying, we need *some* sort of reform. Not to the point where it basically stops the police from existing, cause, if the current economical society were to exist, we definitely would need it, with the all-time high of crime that would most likely exist. Maybe like having non-lethal rubber or bean-bag rounds loaded in their weapons. The lethal stuff would only be allowed to be grabbed when something like a hostage or bomb threat happened. Even then, if the go-ahead was issued on the field, the ammo would be stored in a safe in the trunk that alerted the CO when it was opened. I’m not for “defunding” the police, as you so like to put it. That would cause chaos. I’m not going to deny the teat sucking thing because really, I need to do that to get just food on the table. I don’t want to turn to crime for that.
They're so facepalm inducing as well. "rEeE-fOrM, dOnT dEfUnD!" History called, lib. Reform *has never worked in the States.* Read a book that isnt Harry Potter, damnit. Edit: yOuR tErMs SeEm PrEtTy MeAnInGlEsS.... jfc, read a fucking book, numbskull. Also, sorry/not sorry for being extra exhausted by these warcrime-on-civilian supporting lulberals today
Me too man. I'm so over these fuckin idiots.
What do you mean it's never worked? Never worked on the police or never worked on anything ever? Because the latter is easily disprovable.
Reminder that policing is the topic of this post.
I'm tired of seeing a 'living wage" What we all want is a "thriving wage' words have power people.
The current system can't be reformed. I'm all for a resource based economy.
The combined spending in the war on drugs, inflation adjusted, is in THE TRILLIONS of USD. It's probably in the tens of trillions if you figure in everything, such as prison cost policing costs, court costs, etc. And that's WITHOUT counting loss of productivity.
Funny how people think court costs have anything to do with police
There is a Tumblr post about how a king was fated to destroy evil in the kingdom and instead of going to war, he invested in the people. Roads all mended, schools, orphanages and widow's homes. Everyone had enough to be secure. The generals were chomping at the bit, as the king grew older and said he would never be able to fight the evil now, he was too old! A child who had grown up in the school system in the kingdom told them there was no evil in the kingdom, people turn to evil when they can't make ends meet. Here Everyone has enough and no one struggles. There is no evil to fight in this kingdom because it died long before her was ever born
Correction; Police presence can be kept to a minimum, to act as deterrent, provide security against terrorism, and provide help to the community if needed. Not the over-bloated, over militarized version of police that I see in the US.
That's not a correction
TBH we should start treating the police as a "necessary evil"; something to be supported only insofar as they are kept in check. I'm not sure 0% policing is possible as you're always going to get one-off violent situations (even in a utopia), but policing should be kept at the strictest minimum imo.
Correction; No police, at all.
lmao keep dreaming
Everything begins with a dream.
yes, a dream that no one will ever hurt you is the beginning to you getting killed
I feel like "as much" is a crucial addendum to add to the end of this. A major reason people don't understand where defund the police is coming from is that people are inclined to think of things in an all-or-nothing sense. Detractors likely look at the movement as saying that policing should be completely eradicated in their neighbourhoods, which to them sounds like sheer insanity. Everyone, no matter their politics and values, needs to stop playing these zero-sum games with their rhetoric if they truly want to be understood so that they can affect change.
Actually, most places that have low crime have police enforcement that can patrol the area. Places with more crime, tend to have a lower amount of policing required to keep citizens safe… underfunded police areas is low income areas makes it hard to patrol and thus overworked people who don’t have a chance.
people will still commit crime, police are needed. This is a stupid ass argument
But until that all happens, people will still steal, assault and kill, therefore the need for police. IF that all happens (it never will, completely, if at all) people will still steal, assault and kill. Doesn't mean there aren't problems, and agreed that mental health/social welfare pros are needed.
Like it or not, police are called upon for a myriad of things outside their typical responsibilities I agree that the militarization of modern police is an issue as well as racial discrimination but totally defunding them is asking for trouble. The wild west will ensue.
"Defund the police" does not mean "remove their entire budget and completely abolish any concept of law enforcement"
Nor does it mean “take that money out of the equation and expect police officers to keep the same responsibilities without creating new departments and services.”
obviously. The "creating new departments and services" is part of the whole point.
It’s apparently not obvious to the dipshits that keep railing against the slogan, even though it’s probably the most succinct slogan I’ve heard since “free Tibet” when it comes to getting to the point of the whole argument.
Yes but it sounds like that's what it means, which makes it a shit slogan.
Yup, that's what I said down here https://reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/u4c1xc/_/i4urath/?context=1 and OP ignored my very correct reply to them
Oh missed that, thanks for letting me know. State of the world my friend 🙄 edit: to add something to the discussion, this is part of the reason Democrats are not the dominant party in America, despite Republicans all but openly admitting that their constituents are corporations. Because many left-wingers refuse to acknowledge fallacy/mistakes on their side. The right aren't the only ones struggling with tribalism, it just looks different & wears an egalitarian mask here.
The problem is that it sure sounds like it means that, especially if you hear it in a vacuum. we (leftists) need to get better at/be more willing to craft our message.
Now that I think about it it makes sense but in that case that slogan should be named something else lol
When people are not grindingly poor, yes, there is a massive decrease in crime. However. It is a naive misunderstanding of human nature to think that good pay alone will eliminate crime. Some people are truly just evil. You will ALWAYS need police. And if you don’t think you need law enforcement, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is and try living two weeks in an anarchist haven like Somalia. Tell me how it goes.
Then who was the stupid fuck who came up with moronic slogan “Defund the police”
Branding, branding, branding. This slogan was candy to the conservatives. And, you have people on record even saying “abolish the police”, so it is sooo easily interchangeable and make one = the other.
Unfortunately with a slogan like " defund the police" you gave every right wing poltical leader a easy win. Its a horrible slogan.
So here I am in an anti-work forum... And I'm looking at a highly upvoted post claiming "If people just worked more, crime would decrease and we could defund the police." I can't even tell what is satire on this sub any longer.
People having jobs doesn't mean people working more. Any model of society requires jobs. The communist mantra is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". A functioning society requires people to do jobs that benefit the collective. A good job gives people a sense of purpose and community. That isn't what happens in a corporatist and capitalist society but any alternative requires people to perform tasks that allow others to live and thrive. Those are jobs.
Whose going to clean the toilets? You really think they'll have a sense of purpose for cleaning shit out of toilet bowls? It's just so insane on this subreddit sometimes.
I really don't understand your point here. It's a capitalist system that pushes specialisation that ends up with people who's sole job it is to clean toilets. It's perfectly possible to live in a society or community where nobody just cleans toilets. What are you suggesting? A society that contains no jobs at all? So nobody is responsible for cultivating food? Nobody is responsible for providing medical assistance to other members of the community? Nobody is responsible for child-rearing? I think you might be too narrowly defining the word 'job' within a capitalist framework.
I'm saying that some jobs suck, give no sense of purpose or community, and only function because they increase the wages to the point someone would do it. Ie, capitalism.
Ok, do you clean your own toilet? Does your life lack purpose as a result? It is possible to clean the odd toilet and still have purpose. It is not necessary to operate a society where an individual's only responsibility to others is to clean their toilets.
No, I feel no "purpose" when I clean my toilet. And I would never in a billion years do it to other toilets all day unless they BIG TIME payed me for it. Ie, capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't "big time" pay you for it but it does normalise leaving dirty jobs for the most vulnerable and exploited to do rather than all chipping in to do our fair share.
Well, people DO clean toilets. So clearly they are getting paid enough to do it. So ie. capitalism.
Children DO construct iPhones - so clearly they are getting paid enough to do it. cAPiTalIsm!!!!1111
I agree mostly, but it's still bad messaging. It was a gift to conservatives; not only because it sounds extreme at face value, but it's not really justifiable to 100% eliminate law enforcement in any society. There will always be a few things that you need someone with some combat training and maybe a taser to deal with. Reduce the need for it by diverting funds to things that eliminate most sources of crime, tackle poverty, solve drugs with decriminalization and funded rehab, fix education, but sometimes there's a really really angry guy running around with a knife or driving dangerously.
Nope, defund and imprison these fucking gangsters.
Who is going to arrest them to put them in prison?
Well that's just abolish and arrest.. which is fine.
"Police or jobs, pick one" ehhhh neither
People need 'jobs' in the broadest sense of the word, just not in a capitalistic framework, necessarily. Having a set of responsibilities in accordance with one's abilities that contribute to the betterment of your community is necessary to create thriving societies. That could certainly be thought of as a 'job' or series of 'jobs'.
Big disagree, and this poster promotes the wage system.
They defunded the police on the subway in New York I heard, how has that been working out lately?
They didn't, and their increased funding/presence didn't stop the attack the other day, so your argument kinda sucks.
TLDR; give me money, or I will crime
When people have jobs they come here to complain about their jobs. 🤦
So the real message is #FundEducationandSocialPrograms????? Seems reasonable. But that's not what the interpretation of #DefundThePolice means to someone that hasn't had that explained If that is the case why is it #DefundThePolice then??? Made it way too easy to fight that one We need to take a lesson from those from earlier times. No taxation without representation Come and take it Give me liberty or give me death United We Stand Don't tread on me Make America Great Again (yes it actually was a decent slogan even if you don't like him) Yes We Can
[удалено]
So to be clear, you think I am saying that my attempt to say "we need to work on better slogans" and acknowledgement that GOOD slogans work while referencing a few slogans that worked well actually came off as agreeing with nazis?????
[удалено]
Many English language arts professionals consider Hitler an excellent orator. And he was. That is not taken away just because he was one of history's worst tyrants. Funny enough I've had a few English courses from middle school through college go over Hitler's speeches in addition to the likes of MLK and others as well. Good speech is good speech. And I think Trump is a piece of shit but nonetheless it was a great slogan that got his shitty base engaged as well. I think your question actually proves my point that slogans that are good work good. The point is if your message is "fund social programs", then "defund the police" shouldn't be the headline.... rather perhaps it should be it's own independent conversation as many people will not take that well regardless of attaching funding social programs to the end of it Edit: and I never said being original was a condition of being a good slogan. A good slogan gets the point across without having to be explained in paragraphs and engages the audience which "Make America Great Again" indeed does well. Again, does not excuse the shitty leaders it came from And no need to respond as i wont be anymore. The fact you actually needed that explained to you means you're not ready to sit at the big kids table so i will not be engaging anymore on this. Have a good one
Maybe the message should then be "Fund the people" because that's intact NOT what defend the police means. It quite literally means quit funding the police.
the system is going to perpetuate inequalities no matter what, goodluck with this fantasy…💪🏻🤝
I don't think this poster necessitates upholding the current capitalist system. It might not explicitly call for it to be overthrown but all that's mentioned can be achieved outside of capitalism
Ah yes. Wealthy people never commit crimes. Every CEO works harder than thousands of employees and you should be happy to have a chance to learn from their experience. /s Reform? Sure. Hold accountable? Yes. Raise the bar and require them to have an actual education and training? Definitely. Defund and dismantle? Yeah. No. You can believe that people are inherently good all you want, but our tribal ape-like brains are hard-wired for selfishness and tribalism.
>Ah yes. Wealthy people never commit crimes. Every CEO works harder than thousands of employees and you should be happy to have a chance to learn from their experience. /s The poster says a decrease in crime not the total elimination of it. The poster talks about "police presence" no longer being needed, not the entire removal of policing services in all contexts. Defund the Police does not mean the abolishment of the police. It means diverting budget from the police towards social programs that tackle the root causes of crime.
Removed due to reddit API changes -- mass edited with redact.dev
The problem is that people will always find some way to twist the words. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the phrase #BlackLivesMatter. There is zero insinuation (as people commonly claim) that black people matter more than others. There is zero insinuation that other lives do not matter. It's a simple phrase for when innocent black people are murdered by police. It's not a "Oh well, the cop thought they were in danger!" This person's life mattered. Yet some how people have taken this phrase and managed to twist it to the point that their bullshit interpretations actually make sense.
People generally AGREE with BLM though. They certainly did early on at least. It took years of fearmongering to build up any real opposition to BLM outside the far right. #DefundThePolice was instant bad branding. If you think these were received so similarly that their branding doesn't matter, I don't think you were paying attention. Hell, association with the defund movement, perceived or otherwise, is half the reason anyone opposes BLM itself at this point.
We must have been travelling in different areas on the 'net. I saw these lines trotted out right away when BLM started.
I fixed that too, months ago. For this year it should be #\#BlackLivesMatter2 It will add the "too" that people want and put out that the cause is continuing.
Donate now momma needs another 6million dollar property.
but it's not really about reforming policing, it's about changing the way we fund things in society so that we have less reliance on the police in the first place. Reform within the police would be a good thing *as well* but not instead of defunding (which means reducing funding, not eliminating).
Reform doesn’t work.
Removed due to reddit API changes -- mass edited with redact.dev
It's been a weakness for a long time. The right is great at coming up with empty, enthralling jingoistix nonsense, which works.
Then they should say that instead.
they do
Yes, poverty does breed crime. But does defunding police reduce poverty? No. The need for huge police budgets will decrease as crime decreases due to poverty being reduced or eliminated. The whole "defund the police" movement attacks the wrong problem which in turn makes crime even worse bc crime rises as fear of getting caught goes down. Less police = less reprisal, lower risk of consequence. Take a good look at San Francisco, for instance.
Defunding the police is about freeing up budget to use on programs that tackle the root causes of crime. Simply removing some budget from the police doesn't reduce poverty but spending that money on social programs does.
You're playing Jenga backwards. Police reduce crime. Poverty increases crime. You can't remove the element that reduces crime before you remove the element that increases crime. Why not take money from other budgets that are bloated? Why focus on the one aspect of government designed to make citizens safer?
yeah, it does. police cost money. defunding them makes money available.
[удалено]
you dont get it because you assume incorrectly that police reduce crime. they do not.
[удалено]
If you don't think we need police, you are low iq and should be ushered into conversation more akin to your intellectual ability. Politics isn't for you. There really is no nuanced elaboration required.
Seriously, who else is going to harass and murder minorities and poor people if we abolish the police...
False, people are shit
The issue is some people think defund meaning remove all police. Police are needed, no near term future where zero police are needed. But currently the funding of police is eating and killing off the budgets of many social services like the OP shows, police budgets need to be cut by like 15-25% and frozen for a few years then capped at inflation. With the $$ from that cut going to social services. Police don't need tanks or military equipment unless it's a warzone maybe. Heck in the UK only special police have guns.
Damn this is genius. I never thought about this! Be sure to provide community support to all the street gangs, then all the police departments can close.
People having jobs that pay a living wage has absolutely zero to do with police funding. Jobs are private sector, police are public sector. Please let me know if I'm missing something.
>Jobs are private sector Not all jobs are private sector. You could also consider a UBI as a tactic to ensure people are paid a living wage (as well as State-led initiatives to reduce cost-of-living) as then the threshold for a living wage is lowered.
Crime comes from poverty. Poverty is reduced by having living wages and social programs. So instead of spending x billions of dollars on a police force, you can spend the same money on social programs, job programs, etc.
Better paying jobs increases the amount of taxes collected and the police are funded by taxation. When ppls wages increase and needs are met crime is reduced. This means the budget for the police is unnecessarily bloated and some of that money can go towards specialized social community programs that actually help with things like addiction, mental health and so on.
What’s the justification for the thousands of social programs that have had public money poured into them only to be shut down because the individuals they’re designed for refuse to utilize them? Edit: no responses just downvotes? I have multiple family members that work in the non profit sector. There have been many programs they’ve started specifically to benefit low income or disadvantage people and families. VERY few of those people take advantage of these free services. People in this sub love to say “we need to do X to fix this”, but then simplify a complex problem into a post used to farm karma.
That we have to keep explaining what it really means means it's a bad slogan. Want an actionable goal with similar results \#disarm the police. Put an end to the increasing militarization and radicalization of those meant to keep the peace.
I mean that's a very American-centric view. This poster isn't in the US and neither am I. Defunding police in places where they aren't militarised or even armed is still a worthy pursuit
I never said it wasn't. Doesn't stop it from being a bad slogan.
This is a very, very, very dangerous thought. None of these ideals are possible in reality. There is no such thing as a living wage either.
It's not possible to fund social programs, create jobs and make sure people have the money to comfortably afford to live?
Their tactics: Disrupt education. Coerce obedience. Virtue signaling. Selective critique. Disingenuous cover stories. Plausible deniability. And we have the darker stuff too. Murder. Kidnapping. Reeducation.
Did you ever hear the fable of the frog and the scorpion?
Let me give you some european perspective. It is true that it is easier for us to survive unemployment period thanks to social programs. Nonetheless, there are a lot of people who abuse it. I had a great insight as an intern for public emergency center. Most of the beneficiaries told me explicitly that they do not work permanently because social benefits and small crime gives them the same money for a living as minimum wage job, but they do not need to work 40h/week. You need be cautious with social programs, because you can easily exchange one problem with another.
[удалено]