Most Americans Want Police Reform But Don't Back 'Defund The Police'

[Kcannon]

Bingo.

I wish a lot of the cowards in these threads would just say they don't want to defund the police instead of worrying about "branding"

Click to shrink...

Most people support the intent behind "defund the police".

However, they're also aware that they can't do nothing if there's no overwhelming support among the dumber, lazier moderate, thus messaging is important. If telling others to educate themselves was actually viable, then frankly we wouldn't need political speeches or debates.

 

[grand]

It's an incredibly stupid slogan, that doesn't accurately describe the position and can easily be misunderstood or demonized. This is the progressive movement shooting itself in the foot AGAIN for no reason.

 

[TheHunter]

When the liberals actively attack and attempt to sabotage powerful protest demands this will always happen.

You will still be on the wrong side of history even if you claim to be "pragmatic." People really just want an excuse to not confront things apathetic affluent liberals do not want to confront. If you wait for them, change will never come.

Click to shrink...

BLM actually gaining popularity and more whites willing to come out and support anti racism literally suggests otherwise but sure hoss.

 

[Deleted member 8468]

While "Defund the Police" is catchy, it's not a good message as people will construe it wrong.
"Reallocate Money Away from the Police" is the more accurate message, but it's long and clunky.
It's a tough sell.

Click to shrink...

Exactly this. When I explain the concept most people agree with it, but it's just a shit slogan. It sounds great and firey especially during protests and easily gets people's energy going. But as a platform in US politics? It's the worst tag line in the history of tag lines.

 

[Shroki]

This is a matter of careless, scattered language creating confusion and opens the door for opponents to endlessly obfuscate from the actual point. This is why Occupy Wall Street was a failure. The language the protestors used was too non-specific and too easy to be dismissed as drastic, scary and impossible to the masses watching at home.

We need a widespread education campaign about what specifically Camden, NJ did and a lot fewer people using the word abolish.

 

[PBalfredo]

This is a great Twitter thread on the matter. It's fine wording. Defund the police.

Click to shrink...

Nobody acting in good faith misunderstood the meaning of Black Lives Matter.

Conversely, the All Lives Matter crowd also knew exactly what they were saying.

There was no innocent confusion.

 

[Lishi]

What that say?

If you have to explain your joke its not a good joke?

 

[Deleted member 8644]

Nobody acting in good faith misunderstood the meaning of Black Lives Matter.

Conversely, the All Lives Matter crowd also knew exactly what they were saying.

There was no innocent confusion.

Click to shrink...

So why did blm rise in popularity? People started acting in good faith all of a sudden? It was considered a very controversial tagline then which is also part of the reason why it's so effective. People here are trying to gaslight the rest into thinking that everyone was behind blm when it's absolutely not true, and proposing alternatives that are just about as effective as "racism is bad" would have been for blm

 

[Cipherr]

So why did blm rise in popularity? People started acting in good faith all of a sudden? It was considered a very controversial tagline then which is also part of the reason why it's so effective. People here are trying to gaslight the rest into thinking that everyone was behind blm when it's absolutely not true, and proposing alternatives that are just about as effective as "racism is bad" would have been for blm

Click to shrink...

It rose in popularity because the people on the fence realized through continued cases and increased inarguable camera footage that the police brutality issue we have been talking about for decades really is as bad as we always claimed it was.

NOT because anyone actually innocently misunderstood "Black Lives Matter". The only gas lighting going on is people trying to convince others that BLM was ever just "misunderstood" instead of intentionally twisted by racists who hate black people.

Folks didn't start googling BLM and caused its rise in popularity. Folks saw footage of police killing a man in damn near high definition on camera and saw that the cops weren't being held accountable a few weeks after they saw two white men shoot a black man down in the street on camera and ALSO take forever to be arrested. THAT was the accelerator, not some magical websters.com moment where they looked up the definition of Black Lives Matter and realized suddenly that it didn't actually mean "Nobody else matters". That you see Floyd pictures and murals in every state alongside these protests and BLM rallies isn't a coincidence, and it should have been obvious.


Whats wild, is even considering these continued killings of our people that accelerated this issue, it still took 6 freaking YEARS for the BLM movement to get to this point.

6.... years.....

 

[greatgeek]

Something like "Defund Brutality" would possibly cut through the misconceptions and misrepresentations.

 

[signal]

Opinion | Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police (Published 2020)

Because reform won’t happen.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Terra Torment]

This is a matter of careless, scattered language creating confusion and opens the door for opponents to endlessly obfuscate from the actual point. This is why Occupy Wall Street was a failure. The language the protestors used was too non-specific and too easy to be dismissed as drastic, scary and impossible to the masses watching at home.

We need a widespread education campaign about what specifically Camden, NJ did and a lot fewer people using the word abolish.

Click to shrink...

And yet the conversation has changed. No, a majority does not yet support it, of course. But now that the conversation has moved the idea of abolishing police from the unthinkable to merely radical, we can get some movement.

 

[ArchedThunder]

What if we reform the police by defunding them?

 

[Shroki]

And yet the conversation has changed. No, a majority does not yet support it, of course. But now that the conversation has moved the idea of abolishing police from the unthinkable to merely radical, we can get some movement.

Click to shrink...

The conversation hasn't really changed on police abolition, it's only just started it. It wasn't a concept for most people at all until two weeks ago and now it's something for people to disagree with semantically. There's even disagreement on the streets as to what abolish the police actually means in context, whether it's defund, rebuild or throw away entirely. This board has had plenty of posts disagreeing with the abolition of police based on it's literal interpretation only. If Era is endlessly sifting through people confused by this use of language, considering it's high number of users willing and knowlegable enough to explain it, how do you think middle America is doing with just the news? There's a reason this article exists and this is it.

And you're right that wading through this will grow support over the years. But I believe (and I think failing to do this is why Occupy failed) a more direct, targeted approach with specific ideas and concepts will lead to meaningful reform a lot sooner. And I don't mean body cameras and extra training. I mean that you'll get more Camden's by informing people about what they did and how effective it was than bluntly chanting to "Abolish the Police".