Current Events > Barack Obama: You lose people with 'snappy' slogans like 'defund the police'

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

---

That doesn't make defunding the police, nor more pertinently, abolishing it and harshly punishing the multitudes of criminal elements that it has allowed to exist, bad ideas, and relying on popular electoralism for improvement is a path that only leads to failure.

---

The only buzz term that's been decently branded is "Universal Basic Income".

---

Just cant relate too much to my age group or the wave beyond rights for others

methodology/technique just isnt me

the works would benefit from footholds via example that create basic, solid foundations

not situational foothold where only if you feel enraged enough then you can start to relate

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

That doesn't make abolishing [the police] a bad idea

---

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Also shut the FUCK up doom art. I thought you were gonna stop caring about this shit now that the election is over

He was back to shitposting shortly after that "apology" topic lmao.

---

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Thats not what Im saying. Im saying that all these people keep trying to pin dems performing poorly on things like defend the police when no actual candidate campaigned on that

It doesn't matter if a candidate promoted this. People on the left did and that's all that matters.

---

I mean Democrats performance on downballot races was for a lot of reasons, and it'd be unfair to blame Defund the Police solely.

I'm just agreeing that it's absolutely moronic branding.

---

Veggeta X posted...

What lefties don't understand is when you say something extreme and absolute like this it only gives Repubs more ammo to use against us. It's taking steps backwards and it hurts progression. Doing this don't make you the good guy at all.

republicans will get more ammo regardless of what democrats do. that's how they operate.

and "defund" is neither extreme nor absolute. "abolish" is. no mainstream politician in the US is calling for abolition. but it is the ultimate goal of the protests

---

Funkydog posted...

So they want reform? Because you just described reform exactly.

No. This is a very important distinction. Reform is things like requiring more minority officers in schools or requiring them to take bias training or banning chokeholds. Defunding is going to the area in the budget that authorizes and funds cops in schools and removing that so there won't be cops in schools. And then reallocating those funds to the things that tend to lead to violence and unsafe situations in school to address those instead. Those are two very different things.

One assumes the legitimacy of police presence and a continued role where the reform is intended to cement that legitimacy. The other does not assume that legitimacy and assumes other methods will be more legitimate and more effective.

---

anyway, Obama Shut the Fuck Up Challenge 2020

---

Veggeta X posted...

It doesn't matter if a candidate promoted this. People on the left did and that's all that matters.

people on the left you mean normal, every day citizens? Because left politicians for the most part completely ignored defund the police

---

averagejoel posted...

and "defund" is neither extreme nor absolute. "abolish" is. no mainstream politician in the US is calling for abolition. but it is the ultimate goal of the protests

Look at this spin. I'm not gonna tryna convince you guys any further. Keep thinking you're serving justice in your twisted bubble.

---

Veggeta X posted...

Look at this spin. I'm not gonna tryna convince you guys any further. Keep thinking you're serving justice in your twisted bubble.

cool. now please address the part of my post before the "and"

---

MaxEffingBemis posted...

people on the left you mean normal, every day citizens? Because left politicians for the most part completely ignored defund the police

LMAO I'm a normal person. You guys hate being called a monolith but you go and say shit like ACAB. You don't see your own hippocrisy. You're not the good guy you think you are and the sooner you people realize this the better but you won't.

---

legendary_zell posted...

No. This is a very important distinction. Reform is things like requiring more minority officers in schools or requiring them to take bias training or banning chokeholds. Defunding is going to the area in the budget that authorizes and funds cops in schools and removing that so there won't be cops in schools. And then reallocating those funds to the things that tend to lead to violence and unsafe situations in school to address those instead. Those are two very different things.

One assumes the legitimacy of police presence and a continued role where the reform is intended to cement that legitimacy. The other does not assume that legitimacy and assumes other methods will be more legitimate and more effective.

It seems like semantics to me. I consider what you say reform myself, and I think what many others would see so as well. "Defund" just comes across as removing without any replacement and leaving it to criminals to behave.

---

canadian based posters who have their entire identity wrapped up in american politics are about to get got ITT omg

---

Veggeta X posted...

"What I mean is..."

Sound familiar?

I'm saying the non-BLM people who don't want to defund the police have been talking about police reform our entire lives and beyond that and yet what has actually happened? Police budgets have gone up as social services continue to be slashed. Seems that reform framing is not very effective either.

---

Veggeta X posted...

You guys hate being called a monolith but you go and say shit like ACAB. You don't see your own hippocrisy.

I hate to break it to you, but "ACAB" does not stand for "Cops Are a Monolith"

---

Veggeta X posted...

LMAO I'm a normal person. You guys hate being called a monolith but you go and say shit like ACAB. You don't see your own hippocrisy. You're not the good guy you think you are and the sooner you people realize this the better but you won't.

My dude, Im just saying that when protests started happening all over the country in the summer, people from all walks of life were out there screaming for justice, screaming for things like defund the police etc. Even in my red town

---

averagejoel posted...

I hate to break it to you, but "ACAB" does not stand for "Cops Are a Monolith"

Oh I'd love for you to explain this.

---

Why does anyone pretend fake veggy isnt just a troll?

---

Funkydog posted...

It seems like semantics to me. I consider what you say reform myself, and I think what many others would see so as well. "Defund" just comes across as removing without any replacement and leaving it to criminals to behave.

I really don't understand what you're saying. Is defunding the same as reform or is it radically removing police and leaving us at the mercy of criminals? Because you're calling what I just outlined reform, but it is a core example of defunding that heavily trends in the direction of abolition.

---

MaxEffingBemis posted...

My dude, Im just saying that when protests started happening all over the country in the summer, people from all walks of life were out there screaming for justice, screaming for things like defund the police etc. Even in my red town

It's ashamed you guys honestly believe that statement comes off reasonable.

---

Veggeta X posted...

It's ashamed you guys honestly believe that statement comes off reasonable.

It doesnt matter, this is what a lot of normal citizens want

---

If liberals believe this slogan is so harmful for their electoral hopes, their approach of constantly talking about it publicly, thereby giving more attention to it, seems counter-productive. These folks have no shortage of resources and platforms to make their ideas heard; wouldn't it be easier just to push their own solutions and slogans instead?

---

legendary_zell posted...

I really don't understand what you're saying. Is defunding the same as reform or is it radically removing police and leaving us at the mercy of criminals? Because you're calling what I just outlined reform, but it is a core example of defunding that heavily trends in the direction of abolition.

I'm saying that what you're describing is what I would call reform and I feel better describes it. "Defund it" comes across as just tearing it down without proper replacements, while reform suggests fixing it (as much you can fix a broken justice system) in various ways. All the ways you say are ones I'd support and do think many of the military level of budgets American police seem to get should be cut so better social programmes etc can get funded instead. Reform is something we can get politicians to support as well, as practically none have supported defund to my knowledge.

Anything better than the idiocy of requiring degrees they want to implement here in Britain though, as if that will fix anything >.>

---

This Obama?
https://twitter.com/daniel_dsj2110/status/1333874806228480003?s=19

---

The only person who ran on that slogan won her race.

---

you mean black lives matter too - obama

---

Veggeta X posted...

Oh I'd love for you to explain this.

1. laws of society are written by the people in power, and used to exert their will on others
2. the architects of this system owned private property (that is, something that passively makes them money) and wrote these laws to benefit their own interests. the people in power, by and large, still own private property (though now it tends to be rented housing units rather than slaves)
3. the role of the police is to uphold and enforce laws. all laws. they agree to do this as part of the terms of their employment.

"All Cops Are Bastards" is not blaming all cops for the actions of a few; it's recognizing that all cops agreed to uphold all laws, including those that are unjust or cruel or otherwise harmful to the people who are not in power.

---

Obama is right.

---

Antifar posted...

If liberals believe this slogan is so harmful for their electoral hopes, their approach of constantly talking about it publicly, thereby giving more attention to it, seems counter-productive. These folks have no shortage of resources and platforms to make their ideas heard; wouldn't it be easier just to push their own solutions and slogans instead?

Its almost like their goal is to fight the left and not make positive changes

---

King_Hutton posted...

Its almost like their goal is to fight the left and not make positive changes

this always reads like people covering for the fact they can't brand and politically maneuver effectively

---

King_Hutton posted...

Its almost like their goal is to fight the left and not make positive changes

be careful with your phrasing on here -- Doom_Art might quote you and go "bOtH sIdEs" and you DON'T want that to happen

edit: damn he beat me to it

---

averagejoel posted...

edit: damn he beat me to it

where did i say both sides

---

Doom_Art posted...

where did i say both sides

Right there mate.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

"The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?" Obama added

GOAT

cjsdowg posted...

The only person who ran on that slogan won her race.

dowg don't bring race into this



---

Every topic in which people try to figure out what defund the police means turns into a shit show with no consensus. But, no, the slogan is perfectly clear and anyone saying otherwise is gaslighting.

---

Doom_Art posted...

this always reads like people covering for the fact they can't brand and politically maneuver effectively

I'm not sure the architects of the ACA (which absolutely cost Democrats races and control of Congress in 2010) have a leg to stand on when discussing effective political branding.

---

Funkydog posted...

Right there mate.

aaaaaaahhhhh ya got me

---

COVxy posted...

But, no, the slogan is perfectly clear

If I read the slogan I assume it means Get rid of the police.

Am I correct? If not, Obama is right.

Funkydog posted...

I'm saying that what you're describing is what I would call reform and I feel better describes it. "Defund it" comes across as just tearing it down without proper replacements, while reform suggests fixing it (as much you can fix a broken justice system) in various ways. All the ways you say are ones I'd support and do think many of the military level of budgets American police seem to get should be cut so better social programmes etc can get funded instead. Reform is something we can get politicians to support as well, as practically none have supported defund to my knowledge.

Anything better than the idiocy of requiring degrees they want to implement here in Britain though, as if that will fix anything >.>

How is getting rid of policing the same as fixing policing? One has policing, the other doesn't. I have certainly never ever seen any activist want to get rid of policing without replacing it with anything. The replacement part and the criticism of the lack of investment in anti-poverty and anti-racism measures is central to the argument for defunding, it's even more central than police brutality and social control.

Reform certainly doesn't capture what activists want because that assumes police will still have the same role in society. People have been trying to reform policing for decades, with some success, but with much more failure. And in the midst of all that reform, police are now in schools, arresting students, they're in work places, their budgets take up a larger and larger share of municipal expenditures etc. Reducing their role, possibly to the point of elimination seems categorically different to me and to the activists.

---

I mean, I just wish people would be honest. It's not a coincidence that these types of rallying cries are set up the way they are. They are meant to be bombastic to get attention, "to get people talking".

But at some point it is necessary to pivot to make progress. And when that doesn't happen there's a bunch of people pretending like the original slogan wasn't crafted to incite emotion and grab attention, without much care about the reflection on the overall goals.

---

Doom_Art posted...

this always reads like people covering for the fact they can't brand and politically maneuver effectively

you flat out ignored Antifars salient point just to take a potshot at Hutton

Who's really all about feeling good about themselves here

I mean the spending on police is pretty small and the growth has been fairly modest overall and actually falling in some big cities.

Personally I think emphasizing policing is a dead end. Its an attempt to bypass a harder conversation about what should be illegal in the first place. Imo

---

I think it's kinda weird that we're making politician decisions based on what activists are saying, rather than what the actual politicians are saying.

Or are actual politicians also saying it without explaining what they mean?
---

Maybe these moderates should put their energy into actually reforming police instead of getting mad over a slogan.

---

legendary_zell posted...

How is getting rid of policing the same as fixing policing? One has policing, the other doesn't. I have certainly never ever seen any activist want to get rid of policing without replacing it with anything. The replacement part and the criticism of the lack of investment in anti-poverty and anti-racism measures is central to the argument for defunding, it's even more central than police brutality and social control.

Reform certainly doesn't capture what activists want because that assumes police will still have the same role in society. People have been trying to reform policing for decades, with some success, but with much more failure. And in the midst of all that reform, police are now in schools, arresting students, they're in work places, their budgets take up a larger and larger share of municipal expenditures etc. Reducing their role, possibly to the point of elimination seems categorically different to me and to the activists.

All those things you want are what I would consider part of reform. Reform their role. Reduce it, change it. Make it so they aren't everywhere as they aren't needed. Defund does not cover this regardless of the intent of the message behind it. Defund sounds like just removing their money and says nothing about what you do after to them, their role or what you replace them with. Reform suggests you are doing something about that. Again, we want the same thing from what I can tell, I just think the phrase used could be better.

It's not an easy thing, given how fucked up the justice system is from top to bottom and I'm not sure is any easy fix to it at all. But unless we want to go all French Revolution, we have to work with the corrupt politicians we've got.

---