Defund The Police: some feedback

[David G]

Neophytes? Some knowledgable people who should have known better jumped onto the "defund" movement, anticipating that it might further some of their more reasonable goals and expose some of the downsides of police policy. For example:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...it-have-merit/

Not neophytes, so they have to face the backlash music for not speaking clearly and reasonably.

Yes, it WAS the neophytes who barfed it up.

Brooking is wonks. A culture of rational discussion also with little PR savvy.

Another factor - people keep thinking we're in normal times. Brooking expected normal times. In normal times, the laughably bombastic appellation would have been shrugged off and some other verbiage inserted. But today, RWW's seize on ANY hint of a chance for gotcha... and grip it and shake it with the vigor and stubbornicity of rabid badgers. 'Clearly & reasonably' is not on the menu.

[Dave Wright]

I don't think we have any serious differences here. Funds are required to rehabilitate, accommodate, or neutralize criminals, drug addicts, the mentally ill, and a whole lot of very unlucky people. In the case of Portland that means a doubling of the police force, and expanding the social services responders. The "clients" could be locally and readily served if they were uniformly distributed across the country. But they concentrate in cities like Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, etc. So the only way to realistically deal with the problem is through federal assistance whereby all citizens of the country pay for those who can't or won't fit in. Of course this usually means loss of local control and perhaps more waste, and a horrible national fight for funds....

Defunding isn't possible, we need a heck of a lot more funding across the board.

[David G]

There's a common FB meme that says: I don't want free health care. I simply want my tax dollars spent for universal health care (which will save money overall) and for other programs that will benefit people. And not for further tax breaks for the already wealthy. This is a similar thing.

[Osborne Russell]

Neophytes? Some knowledgable people who should have known better jumped onto the "defund" movement, anticipating that it might further some of their more reasonable goals and expose some of the downsides of police policy. For example:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...it-have-merit/

Not neophytes, so they have to face the backlash music for not speaking clearly and reasonably.

The author appears to say, it doesn't defunding, it only means defunding the bad things that are done.

He wants the police to be privatized. He is an historical illiterate or a fascist.

He speaks of reducing crime, whereas, the function of the police is the maintanance of order.

[Osborne Russell]

More money for mental health action on the streets is not controversial. And, anyone paying attention knows the slogan is not merely simplistic but counter-productive. It has sold a lot of firearms, so the NRA thanks you.

The last refuge is, so it was excessive, let's be tolerant. Begs the question, is it not excessive still? And, with time, has it become less counter-productive? A question the tolerance argument can't even reach, being bound to its own set of facts.

The question all along has not been what does it "really mean", then or now, whoever used it. The question is, why do you continue to use it, knowing how greatly the costs outweigh the benefits?

Are you pulling a motte-and-bailey?

The slogan's relation to the police abolition movement has been described as a motte-and-bailey fallacy by John Murawski at RealClearInvestigations. According to him, when "defund the police" is criticized as tantamount to police abolition by opponents, proponents provide a moderate interpretation in terms of police demilitarization until the criticisms are addressed, only to return to more radical interpretations later.

-- wikipedia, Defund the police

Which is what I mean by dishonest -- from the beginning.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).

-- wikipedia, Motte and bailey

Here's another current favorite:

The Bailey: USA out of NATO!

Objection: That's stupid!

The Motte: We don't mean out of NATO, only defunding the bad parts!

Objection: That isn't what you said.

The Motte: Don't you want America to be great again?

Objection: Of course!

Return of the Bailey: OK then! USA out of NATO!

[Dave Wright]

He speaks of reducing crime, whereas, the function of the police is the maintanance of order.

The maintenance of order seems easy to understand, but I'd like to hear you expound on how crime might be reduced. Do the police have any role in crime reduction?

[Osborne Russell]

The maintenance of order seems easy to understand, but I'd like to hear you expound on how crime might be reduced. Do the police have any role in crime reduction?

Of course.

Crime might be reduced any number of ways, some of which are propounded by Defunders. Their assortment of mottes Their bailey is, defunding is the only way they can be implemented. Like how racism can only be expunged, or the oppressor permanently defeated, if "the system" is destroyed. Or existence only made truly free by overthrowing reason. All that woke S.

[David G]

Another run of Calvinist black/white thinking.

[Dave Wright]

I just watched 6 minutes of Portland Or news (KATU) before turning the TV off.

First story, a two level house with completely trashed interior, over 1000 needles, and buckets of sh!t. The elderly owner had died and squatters moved in. The caretaker showed the reporter the house and said there was nothing he could do about it, and no help from any government agency. He drove by one night, estimated 25 people partying and a man sitting on the front stoop "cleaning his Glock." The caretaker drove away.

Second story, a bullet went through one of the windows of a dinner boat travelling up the Willamette river. Passenger in his 70's injured, perhaps just by broken glass. No suspects

Third story, homicide shooting in North Portland.

Typical daily fare.

I turned the TV off. I assume all of this happens because people tolerate it.

[Osborne Russell]

Another run of Calvinist black/white thinking.

Or maybe Mithraist. LOL

[Osborne Russell]

I turned the TV off. I assume all of this happens because people tolerate it.

Not really toleration. They expect the police to handle it because that's what the police are for.

[David G]

"Men of integrity, by their very existence, rekindle the belief that as a people we can live above the level of moral squalor. We need that belief; a cynical community is a corrupt community."

John W. Gardner

[David G]

Tax reduction has an almost irresistible appeal to the politician, and it is no doubt also gratifying to the citizen. It means more dollars in his pocket, dollars that he can spend if inflation doesn't consume them first. But dollars in his pocket won't buy him clean streets or an adequate police force or good schools or clean air and water. Handing money back to the private sector in tax cuts and starving the public sector is a formula for producing richer and richer consumers in filthier and filthier communities. If we stick to that formula we shall end up in affluent misery.

John W. Gardner

[WI-Tom]

Crime might be reduced any number of ways, some of which are propounded by Defunders. Their assortment of mottes Their bailey is, defunding is the only way they can be implemented. Like how racism can only be expunged, or the oppressor permanently defeated, if "the system" is destroyed. Or existence only made truly free by overthrowing reason. All that woke S.

You are singularly clueless on this stuff. Or just so prone to extreme degrees of hyperbole that it makes you look that way. I've never seen an honest attempt from you to understand the position you pretend to critique under the "woke S" label you give it.

You'd have more credibility if you made an effort to state their case the way THEY see it--not the way YOU see it--and then offer a critique. If, indeed, after making an honest attempt at understanding things, and paraphrasing proponents of "woke S" accurately and honestly--making the BEST case you can for them--if, after all that, you feel that criticism is still warranted.

Tom

[Osborne Russell]

It would be like asking a worker in a Soviet state what communism is. "Peace and justice" would be the answer.

"What about Soviet crimes?" "What crimes? . . . Oh yeah. Well anyway, why harp on the negatives?"

That's "the way THEY see it." It tells me a lot about communism, and a lot about them, but not what they intended to tell me.

It is not for me to make the best case I can for them. It is for them to be responsible for what they allow to be done in their name. "The Russians use rape as a weapon of terror!" "Come on, what do you have against motherhood? Try to see it from the Russian point of view!"

Nevertheless, I will make the best case I can for them: they are misguided. Three words. It applies most to those who are the most ignorant, having less guilty knowledge; but that shifts the issue to their responsiblity for their ignorance.

As for my making an honest attempt at critique, I've brought it by the truckload, answered all questions, and been slathered with ad hominem, which is ipso facto dishonest.

[WI-Tom]

^^^ About what I figured. You are not willing to confront their best arguments. Only your straw man versions of what you think you know, which are wildly inaccurate and hyperbolically biased parodies of reality from what I can see.

I think you actually have the intellect to take them on for real. Apparently you feel otherwise.

Tom

[Osborne Russell]

^^^ About what I figured. You are not willing to confront their best arguments. Only your straw man versions of what you think you know, which are wildly inaccurate and hyperbolically biased parodies of reality from what I can see.

I think you actually have the intellect to take them on for real. Apparently you feel otherwise.

Tom

More of the same from you, intellectual dishonesty and ad hominem.

Since you accuse me of not confronting their best arguments, you must know what they are. So present them. Stand behind them. Or, you got nothin'.

I think you actually have the intellect to take them on for real. Apparently you feel otherwise.

That doesn't even make sense. I've taken on the best, the worst, and everything in between.