2elijah said:

v10letblues said:

I know how some have asuaged it to mean. And I get it. But the premise and the wording is unfortunate. It sounds like something concocted and named with specific intent on making demcrats and black lives matter look stupid.

We need not "run with something" just becasue it presented to us. We need to think critically, think for outrselves and examine how idiotic this message is.

It remids me of so-called progressives like "The Hill" or TYT" who in many ways seem like they are trying to hurt the democratic party in guise.

The democratic leadership itself finally had to tell top democrats not to forward the unfortunate term.

[Edited 6/15/20 5:46am]

Well, it’s been more than a week, since that statement came out, and no I don’t think it makes the Democratic Party look stupid or Black Lives Matter. Let’s look at the progress made so far, due to the pressure from the protests, and because of Black Lives Matter support from protesters. Action speaks louder than words. We already see the changes/action being taken against many police departments because of police brutality protests, which has led to at least one state demanding police reform or lose state funding and being forced to re-organize/work on better hiring requirements/training of police candidates in others. Not to mention Breonna’s law being passed, and another state Dismantling their police force. This is just the beginning. Moving some funding out of police depts and re-examining where it should go instead, to take some of the responsibility off of police, and delegate it towards other social programs that deals with the public. Police officers are not social workers/mental health/drug counselors, etc. [Edited 6/15/20 6:57am]

The progress made has nothing to do with the silly defund movement. They are two completly separate issue.

One is people fed up and taking a stand. The other is an ill though out political nonsense.

.

Props to everyone who has come out and protested and shown the world we demand change.

[Edited 6/15/20 17:13pm]

v10letblues said:

2elijah said:

v10letblues said:

The progress made has nothing to do with the silly defund movement. They are two completly separate issue.

One is people fed up and taking a stand. The other is an ill though out political nonsense.

.

Props to everyone who has come out and protested and shown the world we demand change.

[Edited 6/15/20 17:13pm]

I beg to differ. Like I said the defunding aka reallocation of funds, are already part of many of the changes in process in police reform, for many police departments. Don’t let the term irritate you, it means far more than what some folks are taking it for. Lots of progress being made because of the protesters yes, that’s what the main focus is on now, and as an African-American woman, I know these are just baby steps, but I’m happy it’s a start. I’ll leave it at that for now. [Edited 6/15/20 18:34pm]

.

The problem is the term. There are so many different understandings of "defund" and many people do literally mean "defund" even "disband", not reallocate as part of a reform package.

.

The risk is calls for defund heard as disband will scare people to whomever stands for law and order. The baby steps need to be forward, not a strengthening of the show force mentality.

IanRG said:

2elijah said:

v10letblues said: I beg to differ. Like I said the defunding aka reallocation of funds, are already part of many of the changes in process in police reform, for many police departments. Don’t let the term irritate you, it means far more than what some folks are taking it for. Lots of progress being made because of the protesters yes, that’s what the main focus is on now, and as an African-American woman, I know these are just baby steps, but I’m happy it’s a start. I’ll leave it at that for now. [Edited 6/15/20 18:34pm]

.

The problem is the term. There are so many different understandings of "defund" and many people do literally mean "defund" even "disband", not reallocate as part of a reform package.

.

The risk is calls for defund heard as disband will scare people to whomever stands for law and order. The baby steps need to be forward, not a strengthening of the show force mentality.

true.

the best way ive heard to describe defunding is by pointing it out we've been doing it to schools for years. then it suddenly becomes clear what is meant and intended for most people.

IanRG said:

2elijah said:

v10letblues said: I beg to differ. Like I said the defunding aka reallocation of funds, are already part of many of the changes in process in police reform, for many police departments. Don’t let the term irritate you, it means far more than what some folks are taking it for. Lots of progress being made because of the protesters yes, that’s what the main focus is on now, and as an African-American woman, I know these are just baby steps, but I’m happy it’s a start. I’ll leave it at that for now. [Edited 6/15/20 18:34pm]

.

The problem is the term. There are so many different understandings of "defund" and many people do literally mean "defund" even "disband", not reallocate as part of a reform package.

.

The risk is calls for defund heard as disband will scare people to whomever stands for law and order. The baby steps need to be forward, not a strengthening of the show force mentality.

Exactly.

It may be semantics, but words matter. Just boggles my mind that any group chose this idiotic term.

[Edited 6/15/20 19:19pm]

cborgman said:

IanRG said:

.

The problem is the term. There are so many different understandings of "defund" and many people do literally mean "defund" even "disband", not reallocate as part of a reform package.

.

The risk is calls for defund heard as disband will scare people to whomever stands for law and order. The baby steps need to be forward, not a strengthening of the show force mentality.

true.

the best way ive heard to describe defunding is by pointing it out we've been doing it to schools for years. then it suddenly becomes clear what is meant and intended for most people.

Very good point. Nobody cared about the word DEFUND when it applied to schools and social programs. Now that it's the police, it's the wrong term and all hell breaks loose. I'm not buying it.

[Edited 6/16/20 4:02am]

poppys said:

cborgman said:

true.

the best way ive heard to describe defunding is by pointing it out we've been doing it to schools for years. then it suddenly becomes clear what is meant and intended for most people.

Very good point. Nobody cared about the word DEFUND when it applied to schools and social programs. Now that it's the police, it's the wrong term and all hell breaks loose. I'm not buying it.

.

Defund, meaning "reallocate as part of a reform package" is not a term used in Australia about the police, schools or social programs - it means "taking funds from ...".

.

Does defund schools or social programs ever mean anything except take funds away from schools or social programs? If not then all hell SHOULD break loose.

.

However, reallocating funds between different ways of preventing or policing & punishing crimes and the things that lead to crime does not sound the same as taking money from schools and social programs - I'm not buying it, it risks worrying middle USA to voting for the person that screams law and order the loudest. The precedent for this is the election of Nixon in 1968 following the 1967 riots.

cborgman said:

IanRG said:

poppys said:

Very good point. Nobody cared about the word DEFUND when it applied to schools and social programs. Now that it's the police, it's the wrong term and all hell breaks loose. I'm not buying it.

.

Defund, meaning "reallocate as part of a reform package" is not a term used in Australia about the police, schools or social programs - it means "taking funds from ...".

.

Does defund schools or social programs ever mean anything except take funds away from schools or social programs? If not then all hell SHOULD break loose.

.

However, reallocating funds between different ways of preventing or policing & punishing crimes and the things that lead to crime does not sound the same as taking money from schools and social programs - I'm not buying it, it risks worrying middle USA to voting for the person that screams law and order the loudest. The precedent for this is the election of Nixon in 1968 following the 1967 riots.

There's no middle USA anymore like there was in the 60s, period.

Protesters came up with something on the fly that fits on a protest banner. If people want to fine-tune the message, fine. We do need to DEFUND the police - and it will take a HUGE fight because since 9/11 they have been allowed to militarize unchecked. Notice the police want to shoot and kill people randomly for petty crimes, but when we talk about taking some of their WAR TOYS away, suddenly they are up in arms, splitting hairs over semantics and what words mean. It's bullshit, just another dodge.

2elijah said:

cborgman said:

true.

the best way ive heard to describe defunding is by pointing it out we've been doing it to schools for years. then it suddenly becomes clear what is meant and intended for most people.

Exactly, but it’s been explained over and over again, this week regarding the police, from many people. It’s clear it was used in a broad sense, no one is denying that. All one has to do is pay attention to what many police dept heads are doing, since that term was used. regarding what and how they are going to restructure their agencies, in the sense of ‘defunding’. Many have already stated what their plans are, as far as moving some funding into different areas, where they feel it shouldn’t be the police’s responsibility. I think those who want to politicize it, is doing exactly what trump would do - using the broad term against the democrats for his own benefit. I choose to focus on the efforts some police dept heads are choosing to do, that will help bring improvements in the structure of their agency, rather than ‘obsess’ about the term.

Yeah, it's bullshit. Something everyone with a keyboard can zone in on. It's shorthand that fits on a banner that works for now. And make no mistake - the police NEED to be DEFUNDED.

poppys said:

IanRG said:

.

Defund, meaning "reallocate as part of a reform package" is not a term used in Australia about the police, schools or social programs - it means "taking funds from ...".

.

Does defund schools or social programs ever mean anything except take funds away from schools or social programs? If not then all hell SHOULD break loose.

.

However, reallocating funds between different ways of preventing or policing & punishing crimes and the things that lead to crime does not sound the same as taking money from schools and social programs - I'm not buying it, it risks worrying middle USA to voting for the person that screams law and order the loudest. The precedent for this is the election of Nixon in 1968 following the 1967 riots.

There's no middle USA anymore like there was in the 60s, period.

Protesters came up with something on the fly that fits on a protest banner. If people want to fine-tune the message, fine. We do need to DEFUND the police - and it will take a HUGE fight because since 9/11 they have been allowed to militarize unchecked. Notice the police want to shoot and kill people randomly for petty crimes, but when we talk about taking some of their WAR TOYS away, suddenly they are up in arms, splitting hairs over semantics and what words mean. It's bullshit, just another dodge.

.

But what if this huge fight is lost or not won by November?

.

This could be because too many people, whatever you call them, may get scared that "defund" means less protection. Lose this and you end up with a trump second term that justifies increased police action. Then it is not semantics, split hairs or a dodge - it is a deepening of the nightmare.

.

Hiding behind it was something that people came up with on the fly is not excuse for placing the world under this threat.

poppys said:

2elijah said:

cborgman said:

true.

the best way ive heard to describe defunding is by pointing it out we've been doing it to schools for years. then it suddenly becomes clear what is meant and intended for most people.

Exactly, but it’s been explained over and over again, this week regarding the police, from many people. It’s clear it was used in a broad sense, no one is denying that. All one has to do is pay attention to what many police dept heads are doing, since that term was used. regarding what and how they are going to restructure their agencies, in the sense of ‘defunding’. Many have already stated what their plans are, as far as moving some funding into different areas, where they feel it shouldn’t be the police’s responsibility. I think those who want to politicize it, is doing exactly what trump would do - using the broad term against the democrats for his own benefit. I choose to focus on the efforts some police dept heads are choosing to do, that will help bring improvements in the structure of their agency, rather than ‘obsess’ about the term.

.

Even in your explanation, you end up listing that the many people seeking to explain a meaning for this think it means different things to different people, to different police dept heads and to different protestors.

.

It became a politcal term as soon as it was used in the protests - an imprecise political term and this is why it is so easily used against people however they use it. That you choose to use it the way you is good but you know this is not what others think it means.

.

It needs a consistent understanding - Is it: Reform the police? Restructure policing? Retarget policing? Reduce the police? Replace all or part of the police? Rationalise the numbers of levels and types of police? Demilitarise the police? etc, etc, etc.

2elijah said:

poppys said:

There's no middle USA anymore like there was in the 60s, period.

Protesters came up with something on the fly that fits on a protest banner. If people want to fine-tune the message, fine. We do need to DEFUND the police - and it will take a HUGE fight because since 9/11 they have been allowed to militarize unchecked. Notice the police want to shoot and kill people randomly for petty crimes, but when we talk about taking some of their WAR TOYS away, suddenly they are up in arms, splitting hairs over semantics and what words mean. It's bullshit, just another dodge.

Exactly, and yes the term is broad, snd I would worry more about the person screaming law and order, (re: Ian’s post) because I already know who the targets would be, and this is the reason I’m glad the term itself, shook up a lot of depth heads, in police depts. That person demanding more law and order to me screams militarizing the police force even more, that’s too much power, which would lead to more abuse. I’d rather see some of the funding go to creating mental health programs/improved and extensive psychiatric tests/treatment for police. Recreational youth programs within the community that’s being policed. Get rid of the forced quotas on cops, because Blacks and Hispanics are usually the targets used to fill the cities’ pockets. Fining/summonses/ticketing, etc., brings money to the city, and prevents layoffs. The jails/prisons stay full that way, and also prevents layoffs. The quotas put pressure on police, and then they take the stress and pressure out on communities of color. Too much unnecessary stops and harassment by rogue cops, just to fill the city’s pockets and jails. All these dirty politics within police depts, and I’m tired of the police using communities of color, as the city’s meal tickets. There is so much restructuring to be done, and reallocating funds to improve community relations between citizens and police, are badly needed, as well as preventing unnecessary, excessive force. [Edited 6/16/20 4:46am]

.

We crossed in posting - I don't disagree at all with what you want to see - all I am pointing out is the term sucks and it not only creates confusion, the confusion is damaging the potential for any of this to occur. This is especially if the confusion scares too many people and we end up with a law and order strengthened re-elected trump.

2elijah said:

poppys said:

There's no middle USA anymore like there was in the 60s, period.

Protesters came up with something on the fly that fits on a protest banner. If people want to fine-tune the message, fine. We do need to DEFUND the police - and it will take a HUGE fight because since 9/11 they have been allowed to militarize unchecked. Notice the police want to shoot and kill people randomly for petty crimes, but when we talk about taking some of their WAR TOYS away, suddenly they are up in arms, splitting hairs over semantics and what words mean. It's bullshit, just another dodge.

Exactly, and yes the term is broad, snd I would worry more about the person screaming law and order, (re: Ian’s post) because I already know who the targets would be, and this is the reason I’m glad the term itself, shook up a lot of depth heads, in police depts. That person demanding more law and order to me screams militarizing the police force even more, that’s too much power, which would lead to more abuse. I’d rather see some of the funding go to creating mental health programs/improved and extensive psychiatric tests/treatment for police. Recreational youth programs within the community that’s being policed. Get rid of the forced quotas on cops, because Blacks and Hispanics are usually the targets used to fill the cities’ pockets. Fining/summonses/ticketing, etc., brings money to the city, and prevents layoffs. The jails/prisons stay full that way, and also prevents layoffs. The quotas put pressure on police, and then they take the stress and pressure out on communities of color. Too much unnecessary stops and harassment by rogue cops, just to fill the city’s pockets and jails. All these dirty politics within police depts, and I’m tired of the police using communities of color, as the city’s meal tickets. There is so much restructuring to be done, and reallocating funds to improve community relations between citizens and police, are badly needed, as well as preventing unnecessary, excessive force.

Yes to all of this ^ And I'd add schools in that reallocating funds mix. Some friends of mine, a mixed couple, who have been fortunate to have a successful business, wanted to give back to the larger community so they created foundation that serves underprivileged elementary students of color by creating after school reading programs in South LA. They did extensive research and put in a lot of their own money as well as raise money every year to create reading programs that supply teachers and books with themes and characters that these particiular children can relate to which in turn inspires them to read more since most statistically lose interest by about 4th or 5th grade due to the ethnically biased reading material. It's a wonderfully altruistic and beautiful program and they've made progress, but THE CITY SHOULD ALREADY BE DOING THIS.


Just sayin', let's also invest in educational programs like these.

IanRG said:

poppys said:

There's no middle USA anymore like there was in the 60s, period.

Protesters came up with something on the fly that fits on a protest banner. If people want to fine-tune the message, fine. We do need to DEFUND the police - and it will take a HUGE fight because since 9/11 they have been allowed to militarize unchecked. Notice the police want to shoot and kill people randomly for petty crimes, but when we talk about taking some of their WAR TOYS away, suddenly they are up in arms, splitting hairs over semantics and what words mean. It's bullshit, just another dodge.

.

But what if this huge fight is lost or not won by November?

.

This could be because too many people, whatever you call them, may get scared that "defund" means less protection. Lose this and you end up with a trump second term that justifies increased police action. Then it is not semantics, split hairs or a dodge - it is a deepening of the nightmare.

.

Hiding behind it was something that people came up with on the fly is not excuse for placing the world under this threat.

No one is hiding Ian, it's organic. And the defund fight will never be won or lost in November, it will be years and years. It would be great to come up with the perfect words all the time but this is a spontaneous process started by the broad daylight murder of George Floyd by cops in the street. There will damn sure be more protests if the cop who murdered Rayshard Brooks is not charged with murder tomorrow.

To protest in the streets, you have to get out of your indoor head, it takes different kinds of muscles, the "paperwork" will follow. This is not a planned political thing. I think you are being hyperbolic about all these people who are going to flip votes over the word defund. It's really not the issue. Trumpers will stay Trumpers, we know that. There are people on this forum (not you) that will argue minutiae to change the focus, I think that's some of what's going on with the defund dust-up.

IanRG said:

The defunding matra is moronic.

What could have been easier than to just phrase it better than to confuse or have be amunition for the right. Unless it's by design to sabotage a movement.

.

And some just go with it and others double down with the stupidity instead taking a quick moment and just thinking how it may affect the national election.

.

Good to see the party took notice of stupid this is

Top congressional Democrats steer clear of 'defund the police' rhetoric

poppys said:

2elijah said:

poppys said:

No one is hiding Ian, it's organic. And the defund fight will never be won or lost in November, it will be years and years. It would be great to come up with the perfect words all the time but this is a spontaneous process started by the broad daylight murder of George Floyd by cops in the street. There will damn sure be more protests if the cop who murdered Rayshard Brooks is not charged with murder tomorrow.

To protest in the streets, you have to get out of your indoor head, it takes different kinds of muscles, the "paperwork" will follow. This is not a planned political thing. I think you are being hyperbolic about all these people who are going to flip votes over the word defund. It's really not the issue. Trumpers will stay Trumpers, we know that. There are people on this forum (not you) that will argue minutiae to change the focus, I think that's some of what's going on with the defund dust-up.

Exactly. People are tired of the militarization of our police depts and the corruption within, I’m so glad these protests have forced many police dept heads to take a look into their agencies, and they already started making changes. Baby steps, but it’s a start.

See Minneapolis.

v10letblues said:

"The defunding matra is moronic."

Why, because "ignorant" people can't figure out the police are too powerful and need their war toys (purchased from the US military) downsized??? That is the issue.

poppys said:

2elijah said:

v10letblues said:

The defunding matra is moronic.

What could have been easier than to just phrase it better than to confuse or have be amunition for the right. Unless it's by design to sabotage a movement.

.

And some just go with it and others double down with the stupidity instead taking a quick moment and just thinking how it may affect the national election.

.

Good to see the party took notice of stupid this is

Top congressional Democrats steer clear of 'defund the police' rhetoric

By Manu Raju and Ali Zaslav, CNN

Updated 7:11 PM ET, Mon June 8, 2020

CNN)Top congressional Democrats are steering clear of the growing calls by activists to "defund the police," saying they sympathize with the intent behind the movement but are concerned that the rhetoric could underc...nationwide.

"I think it can be used as a distraction -- and that's my concern," said Rep. Karen Bass, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and a lead sponsor of the Democrats' new bill t... standards. "Because what I said is what I believe is the real intent, which is to address the root causes of crime."

The sentiment was echoed by top Democrats on Monday after calls to cut funding for local law enforcement picked up steam at protests across the country sparked by the death of George Floyd after a police officer in Minneapolis knelt on his neck.

The city council there announ...department, though the city's mayor, Jacob Frey, later said he wouldn't seek "to abolish the police."

Lmao, Once again, it’s a matter of explaining that ‘it’s not about getting rid of police departments’. I realize you don’t like the term, but it sure has some police dept heads already making changes, even to the point NY Gov Cuomo threatened that if police depts in NY state, don’t make agency changes, they will lose state funding. I doubt the term will lose support for Biden. [Edited 6/16/20 6:03am]

I saw that. Cuomo is winning at the Governor Games! Without governors, we would have NO leadership. Some good ones that have really stepped up, and become great. And even some Repubs that aren't terrible.

DiminutiveRocker said:

2elijah said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

See Minneapolis.

Also in Camden, NJ they dismantled their police dept, a few years ago, and restructure it, and it had led to a drop in crime, and better community relations. Yesterday the police chief in NYC reassigned 600 plainclothes police officers into detective or community policing positions. So I see many changes taking place for the better. I think some folks are creating their own fears of the ‘defund’ term, instead of focusing on the plans/changes that are in process so far, in police depts throughout the country, thanks to the diligence of the protesters’ voices against police brutality.

Camden is the model It will be interesting to see this work in a larger metro city like NYC, LA, SF, Atlanta or Chicago. There is overwhelming public support for this to happen - let's hope the will of the people is acted on.

2elijah said:

poppys said:

"The defunding matra is moronic."

Why, because "ignorant" people can't figure out the police are too powerful and need their war toys (purchased from the US military) downsized??? That is the issue.

Lol.

Had a very long interesting conversation with an African American man a few months ago when we were both waiting to get tires. We got on the subject of cops and he told me he's married to a white woman 20 years, 5 kids, and his brother-in-law is a (white) cop in a smaller Louisiana town. His brother-in law told him that it is in the training to target black/brown people. Blatantly and specifically in the training - no ifs ands or buts about it.

2elijah said:

Exactly, and yes the term is broad, snd I would worry more about the person screaming law and order, (re: Ian’s post) because I already know who the targets would be, and this is the reason I’m glad the term itself, shook up a lot of depth heads, in police depts. That person demanding more law and order to me screams militarizing the police force even more, that’s too much power, which would lead to more abuse.

I’d rather see some of the funding go to creating mental health programs/improved and extensive psychiatric tests/treatment for police. Recreational youth programs within the community that’s being policed.

Get rid of the forced quotas on cops, because Blacks and Hispanics are usually the targets used to fill the cities’ pockets. Fining/summonses/ticketing, etc., brings money to the city, and prevents layoffs. The jails/prisons stay full that way, and also prevents layoffs. The quotas put pressure on police, and then they take the stress and pressure out on communities of color. Too much unnecessary stops and harassment by rogue cops, just to fill the city’s pockets and jails.

All these dirty politics within police depts, and I’m tired of the police using communities of color, as the city’s meal tickets. There is so much restructuring to be done, and reallocating funds to improve community relations between citizens and police, are badly needed, as well as preventing unnecessary, excessive force.

There are SO many good points and suggestions here. NOLA police dept works the same way. Meanwhile, almost no funds for court-appointed defense attorneys, years of backlog while people sit in jail. Our juvenile system is absolutely horrible, you could cry every day over the lack of humanity.

2elijah said:

IanRG said:

.

We crossed in posting - I don't disagree at all with what you want to see - all I am pointing out is the term sucks and it not only creates confusion, the confusion is damaging the potential for any of this to occur. This is especially if the confusion scares too many people and we end up with a law and order strengthened re-elected trump.

I get that the term is broad for many, but then they should ask questions. Listen to what some police dept heads have stated the changes they’re making within their agencies. Honestly, I just don’t see that term scaring so many people to vote for trump. That’s just my view. Like I said there’s already some police heads announcing where they are making changes, and not getting rid of police altogether. It’s about restructuring police depts, and holding them accountable, especially when there’s a killing of unarmed individuals. Too many rogue cops are protected by unions for incidents they are not being held accountable for. It’s about tine for change. [Edited 6/16/20 5:47am]

.

I know what it is about to you and I agree with what is in the explanation and the actions already taken. I hope you are right, but even within the Org microcosm the term is already dividing people normally with similar (but different) views.

.

How much time and effort is being wasted explaining that the term does not mean what the words in it mean?

poppys said:

2elijah said:

poppys said:
Lol.

Had a very long interesting conversation with an African American man a few months ago when we were both waiting to get tires. We got on the subject of cops and he told me he's married to a white woman 20 years, 5 kids, and his brother-in-law is a (white) cop in a smaller Louisiana town. His brother-in law told him that it is in the training to target black/brown people. Blatantly and specifically in the training - no ifs ands or buts about it.

I believe it.