Hacker News Reader

Comment by lucasmullens | Hacker News Reader

My biggest gripe is trying to redefine/explain a slogan after it goes viral. Far too much political energy was spent explaining why "all lives matter" misses the point, and how "defund the police" actually (to some people) means "reallocate police resources"

View on HN

The reason "defund the police" meme activism had to shift gears and re-define it mid-flight was because it was such a spectacular failure, and took so much wind out of legitimate calls for police reform. I recall angry pontification to the effect that "reform" is a dirty word, we must get more radical, hence "defund". Conservative media nodded furiously in agreement and multiplied the message, since they knew full well that it's a self-defeating one.

I would like to introduce my new political slogan, "Cat Hat Mat." It might seem baffling at first, but after you find someone to explain it to you, you'll find out that it's a coherent proposal for housing reform in the Bay Area.

What is meant is “abolish the police state”. The US throws more people in jail than any other country by several orders of magnitude. To get to where we should be, we do effectively need to abolish the system as it exists today. Most cities spend far more on policing than they do on prevention; much of this driven by self-serving lobbying on behalf of police unions.

Nobody except anarchists is claiming that we don’t need police; but a lot of people are saying we don’t need these police. Let’s define the role of police in society and severely curtail their monopoly on violence.

If "abolish the police state" was meant, "abolish the police state" should have been said.

You don't need these police, wonderful. Propose changes, phase them in gradually to prove that they're better than the status quo (we can't just go ahead and assume that with no evidence now can we), work out the kinks so that we're not left with a crime wave in the interim while your bold new ideas are being perfected. I'm non-ironically all for that. The obvious one to try first is funding teams of a police officer paired with a mental health nurse, with self defence training of course. Don't defund anything and anyone to do this; it may or may not work and then you'll need to refund police and that'll be awkward.

Struggling to understand how "severely curtail their monopoly on violence" can be meant in a positive way. Who do you propose should also engage in violence lawfully? People's Self Defence Militia Units?

I live in an inner city neighborhood with a large black population. During the George Floyd protests last year, police drove through my neighborhood (which was not rioting in any form) firing tear gas from an armored vehicle at basically anyone standing on the street. They chased down and beat anyone of color they could get their hands on. I saw this with my own eyes; it’s not propaganda.

It would be one thing if more police actually stopped crime. They don’t. The murder rate in my city is driven by the fact that the clearance rate for homicide is well below 50%. Much of this is driven by distrust of the police and their “crack skulls and ask questions later” attitude. The police are largely ineffective at stopping crime because in many cities, they literally laugh at you when you ask to make a police report.

My comments were a criticism of reform methodology, not a dismissal of the need for reform. There is plenty wrong with police in North America, but defunding it and hoping for the best will make it worse, if anything.

Part of the problem is that the police are run like a gang. Corruption is rampant in most departments and officers do not hold each other accountable and are effectively above the law. Union leaders often have more sway than police chiefs in major cities.

You have to clear out the rot before you can have meaningful change. Otherwise they’ll just sabotage the reform like they have in the past.

Many cities allocate far too high a percentage of their budgets to policing. Programs that are diversionary and reduce crime (education for one) are frequently cut in order to give ever-increasing money to police departments that show zero ROI. If there was more of a focus on “doing the best you can with what you get” like every other city service, it wouldn’t be so bad but right now police dominate city budgets in every city in the US.

'De-fund the police' was DOA. It sounded catchy and initially went viral, but then the inevitable confusion arose as to if they meant literal defunding or just re-allocating, and also the left painted itself into a corner of having to reconcile defudnding with not being soft on crime or condoning criminality .

"Defund the police" is frustrating because that slogan got coopted by moderates who wanted to sound supportive but didn't actually believe in it - it was intended to mean literally what it says on the tin.

See this NYT opinion piece, "Yes, we literally mean abolish the police": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...

(See also "All cops are bastards," which doesn't mean "Some cops are bastards.")

After January 6th, "ACAB" had to take a back seat for while or they'd be in the strange position of condemning the capitol rioters for something they generally support.

(Non-US here) It baffles me the response to January 6th, a group of people vented their anger by invading a public building, a symbol of government and power. Not at their neighbors houses or businesses, not looting, not fencing out blocks of a city for themselves. And I here not making any value judgement on the act, it is besides the point.

If unreasonable* anger should be exercised, that it's target be public buildings and institutions, the bastion of power rather than at John and Mary down the street.

* to be decided by yourself

The US is fairly self-contradictory about the legitimacy of taking up arms against your own government. It isn't a new problem - see the Whiskey Rebellion.

I think there's very little principled about it. About fifty years ago, the leftist Black Panthers decided to openly carry guns into the California legislature's building, and they didn't even invade, they just walked in as visitors. In response, Ronald Reagan, the Republican governor of California who would later be US president, signed a law that made it illegal to openly carry loaded guns. And the National Rifle Association supported that law. None of the right-wing people who idolize Reagan today and also support the events of January 6 seem to think these positions are inconsistent.

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the vast majority of the populace has no intention of taking up arms against the government. That mans that those who are even thinking about it are necessarily not advocating for a representative government for all people. The concern over January 6 was that it would be a coup - putting someone into power who could not win by established democratic means - not that it would be a popular revolution - taking people out of power who gained it by established non-democratic means.

While the votes were being counted in that building. And as attempt to make sure their candidate won.

It was not merely symbolic building. Which makes it massively different then, say, went your anger at some statue which has truly symbolic meaning.

People are understandably extremely sensitive in the US to violence around voting.

I think your frustration is best aimed at Defund activists. The phenomenon of activists exploiting ambiguity in Defund to secure public support was, I think, a far more potent force than moderates attempting to defang it with more headcount for social services.

The "all lives" vs "black lives" thing was just signaling. I don't think it really needed any redefinition, it was pretty obvious the intent of both sides.

So... When Hillary Clinton said (rather flustered) that All Lives Matter, she was saying it to be racist?

Glad you were able to clear her intent up for the rest of us.

She likely said it because she calculated that it was more important to get votes from X portion of the population rather than Y portion of the population that would vote for her anyways.

I didn't say anything about being racist in my comment, but I think it's pretty clear that the only reason #AllLivesMatter became a slogan was because people were uncomfortable with BLM. And I don't think it is a big stretch to suggest that people's documented subconscious biases against black people had something to do with the rise of that slogan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com