Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DJWGibson t1_iy2afiy wrote

At least they're being honest when they specify they don't just want to defund the police but also abolish them entirely and prisons.
I'm sure that will work out well...

0

Pcolocoful OP t1_iy2b3zq wrote

I mean the whole conversation is kinda stupid, while I don’t want to comment on the American police system (simply due to lack of knowledge on the subject) this is Norway. Our police is pretty chill. And our prisons are very well maintained with extremely low return rate.

Apart from that one scandal last year about them apparently having gangbangs on Thursdays, I guess. Google “knulletorsdag” (bang/fuck Thursday) if you’re curious a out that.

2

TechNickL t1_iy4dt8a wrote

I will go to the grave saying that the use of the specific language "defund" rather than anything else like "reform" or "replace" was at least partially an astroturfing op. It was so ridiculously easy to paint "defund the police" as unreasonable because for some reason the movement used step one of a multi step plan as their rallying cry.

If your local community decided they wanted to remodel the library, the campaign phrase wouldn't be "shut down the library".

1

DJWGibson t1_iy4mbae wrote

It’s actually the opposite. We know who started (or at least popularized) the “defund the police” phrase and they meant it as “abolish the police” but felt using “defund” made it seem easier to swallow

1

TechNickL t1_iy4mypn wrote

Elaborate on this cabal of anarchists that you purport exists.

2

DJWGibson t1_iy4vzd0 wrote

Well, I can’t direct you to any anarchist, but there’s the advocacy group Black Visions Collective and people like the author of this editorial:

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

1

TechNickL t1_iy520hb wrote

I don't think most people would say that author speaks for them, even most people who were saying to defund the police in 2020. Yes we'd all love to live in a post crime society where there are no criminals to arrest but the realistic path to that is definitely not to start by eliminating all police.

I remember at the time seeing posts about how "defund the police" actually meant "reduce the militarization of the police and redirect excess funds to social services to decrease crime at the source", radicals like that author were never the driving force, they just took the momentum and tried to run with it and they got their opinions disproportionately boosted because the headline "Abolish all law enforcement" gets clicks.

1

DJWGibson t1_iy539t9 wrote

The problem is there’s two different definitions for “defund the police” and even people on the BLM side of the equation mean different things. And while not all will agree with the New York Times op ed, there’s a heck of a lot that do.

Which is the majority? 🤷‍♂️

Everyone believes their position is the most common. I support cutting police funding, funding social workers and mental health, and demilitarization. Am I part of the majority? I have no clue.

But since the term is unclear and to some people on both the left and the right it means “abolish” then it’s not really useful. No one knows what you mean...

1

TechNickL t1_iy5542j wrote

That's kind of my point. I also saw posts about how using "defund" was 100% necessary to get the point across, which doesn't really make sense. Which is why I think there was an effort, on some level, to insist on the word "defund" in order to undermine what should have been unifying energy.

1

Benu5 t1_iy305nv wrote

Police and Prison Abolition is not an overnight process. It's a long term objective that will likely take at least a century. Whether or not our door writer knows this is up in the air, but it doesn't mean the idea is a fantasy.

0

DJWGibson t1_iy3ja4g wrote

It kinda is a fantasy.

Even countries with the lowest crime rates in the world such as (Iceland, Japan, Switzerland) have police. Society doesn't work without some law enforcement.

You can have universal basic income, increased funding for social workers, decriminalization of drug abuse, and other good programs but there's still going to be bad actors, crimes of passion, angry drunks, and just plain greedy assholes trying to take advantage of others.

3

Benu5 t1_iy5ea55 wrote

None of that is incompatible with Police and Prison Abolition.

Probably the best text to start with would be 'Are Prisons Obsolete?' by Angela Davis

1

DJWGibson t1_iy5lg3h wrote

How is police abolishment not incompatible with the fact that not a single modern society functions without a police force???

1

Benu5 t1_iy7p6t6 wrote

Because it's a process that would take AT LEAST a century, hence what contemporary societies are doing isn't particularly relevant.

Prison and Police Abolition is a goal to try and work towards gradually, not an overnight policy change, read the book.

1

DJWGibson t1_iy87kwn wrote

>Because it's a process that would take AT LEAST a century, hence what contemporary societies are doing isn't particularly relevant.

Which makes it outright impossible.

That's a longer term goal than any human society has attempted. 25 presidencies, 50 election cycles, and three or four generations. Reshaping society for a world we don't know the needs of. Will there even be a recognisable USA in 100 years?

Construction projects that take a decade are hard to manage, and they have a clear goal and blueprints.

>Prison and Police Abolition is a goal to try and work towards gradually, not an overnight policy change, read the book.

I'll buy prison abolishment. I think there are better ways to handle incarceration and rules breakers.

But police? You need someone to keep the peace. There's always going to be someone who breaks the rules. The job of policing needs to fall on someone. And if not a public police force then it becomes the job of the military OR private security firms and corporate security, which is dystopian as fuck.

1