For what it's worth, "Defund the police" does literally mean "reduce funding to what we currently refer to as the police force" whereas "repeal section 230" couldn't (in your interpretation) literally mean "strike section 230 from the US code".
The reality is what this article outlines towards the end; this is already covered by the 1st Amendment in large part, Section 230 does the bulk of its work in simplifying court proceedings. If section 230 were changed, it'd likely be unconstitutional anyway.
>For what it's worth, "Defund the police" does literally mean "reduce funding to what we currently refer to as the police force"
I think the relevant part is that one definition of "defund" is (from Google answer box/featured snippet, only provided definition):
>prevent from continuing to receive funds.
So some people upon first hearing the phrase "defund the police" understand it to mean "prevent the police from continuing to receive funds". Without any qualification, this is naturally understood to mean "all funds", which is not the concrete policy proposal behind (what seems to be most uses of) the phrase.
I myself had this understanding of the phrase "defund the police" when I first heard it (which is not something that I would support) but I do support most of the concrete policy proposals behind the "defund the police" movement that involve reallocating funds from the police to social services and other programs. I would be hesitatant to use the phrase myself though, because this interpretation seems quite common among people not "extremely online".
"Defund the police" is such a bad catchphrase, it does all sorts of disservices to the actual proposed measures. It sounds vengeful and petty, not thoughtful. It's also misleading - the purpose is not (or should not) be primarily to make sure police has less funds; it's to make sure social services and other programs have funds. Why not call it "fund social services" instead of "defund the police", instead? ("fund social services" is a bad name, but the spirit is right - focus on the positive outcome, not on how you'll "hurt" the police. If you want to focus on police, focus on how you'll improve their mission and help them do a better job at reducing violence in communities)
The left has been historically bad at messaging. They use terms like “wealth redistribution” or “defund the police” which triggers a lot of people. The right is much better with terms like “tax relief” or “election integrity”. That’s definitely something the left should work on.
Whether you agree with it or not, the purpose is to remove funds from police, which many believe is a positive outcome. Look at police budgets, how that money is spent, how it affects communities to have 60-80% of their tax money go to police. Again, you may disagree, but removing money from the police is the point of the slogan.
The point is that "defund" means "remove all funding from", not "remove some funding from". The person carrying the sign in this photo doesn't want 20% fewer abortions, they want abortions to stop altogether:
I live round the corner from a UK housing estate with a drugs problem. I very often deeply wish that 60-80% of my local tax money would go to the police.
I often also frankly wish that 10% of it would fund a Sharia-style hangman, but perhaps that is my inner misanthrope.
Here's a simple test: if half of the funds that go today to the police would simply be wasted (say, they go to a "Trump foundation" where Trump may use them as he pleases) - would you consider that a "win"? If not, your primary goal is not "defund the police", it is better allocation of funds
There are decades of academic work on police abolition, books upon books and papers upon papers. Not everyone who says "defund the police" is an abolitionist, but many are.
As far as I can tell, there's no concrete replacement proposed for section 230, just a general wish for less protection for these platforms. Complete police and prison abolition is a much more thorough and considered philosophy.
Fair, which is what I assumed was the case, rather than the idea that we wake up one morning to literally zero recourse for someone stealing our stuff.
That assumption of cohesiveness of argument is what I’m trying to get at with my question. The argument we should be having is in the terms of the academic work, rather than the one-line phrase.
My point overall is that no equivalent academic work has been presented that actually attempts to remove Section 230 protections (as the protections stem ultimately from the first amendment), so it’s not fair to compare the two.
I may have gotten separated a bit from that point along the way, so I apologize for my lack of clarity!
I think it’s hard to claim your definition for”defund the police.”
Perhaps some people view it as “reduce police funding” but many mean it to mean “$0 to police” and that’s the definition of defund.
Words matter and language matters and trying to nuance a pretty simple statement like “defund” is hard for people to understand. Especially with people, friends of mine to be specific, literally mean to defund and remove police.
I know no one involved with the Seattle CHAZ [0] but, for example, this is a group that wants to defund police.
If the intent is to reevaluate police funding then a label like “police reform” makes more sense. Calling something “defund police” and meaning reform is dumb, it’s foolish when there are also people using the label who want to defund the police.
I had a conversation with someone using the phrase ACAB who then explained that not really all cops are bad. This is really confusing to me as to why make a statement that I don’t believe in.
I think we need serious improvement in how we fund and operate police. I want reform and work toward reform. But small, suburban, peaceful city has 100 police officers for 50k people and we have military vehicles and whatnot. I want to work on this and make it better but conversations seem current divided between people who want to increase and zero out the budget and people trying to improve are getting shouted down or ignored. So we’re sticking with the normal increase 1% a year.
Do you think you’ll ever move past the initial shock of disagreement with a movement’s slogan that may be an oversimplification or misleading, or will you always need someone to clarify the argument before you can take it seriously (and not take it seriously until then)?
I’ve “moved on” but I think my issue is with the people I’m trying to talk to who haven’t moved on.
I don’t think I need someone to clarify, but it does take me extra time to figure out if someone is taking about the literal or figurative “defund” idea.
The reality is what this article outlines towards the end; this is already covered by the 1st Amendment in large part, Section 230 does the bulk of its work in simplifying court proceedings. If section 230 were changed, it'd likely be unconstitutional anyway.