I have to say your media sucks when reporting on these things. I know some of that probably comes from them just repeating the police statements, but that one article had "no LEO's were injured" like 3 times, implying that it was actually a risk. But there's no reason for them to repeat that.
I mean, that's true, but there's also a chicken and egg problem.
Because Trump proved that even when the media does cover your scandals every day, the public can simply choose to not believe it.
And pro-police culture is far more entrenched in this country than pro-Trump culture is.
Meanwhile, the media is a capitalist entity, so they're going to resist coverage that's going to turn viewers away.
All good points, but I'd also add the last point also means that the media companies themselves have a stake in maintaining the role of police as stewards of private property and capital.
I have to say your media sucks when reporting on these things. I know some of that probably comes from them just repeating the police statements, but that one article had "no LEO's were injured" like 3 times, implying that it was actually a risk. But there's no reason for them to repeat that.
I mean, that's true, but there's also a chicken and egg problem.
Because Trump proved that even when the media does cover your scandals every day, the public can simply choose to not believe it.
And pro-police culture is far more entrenched in this country than pro-Trump culture is.
Meanwhile, the media is a capitalist entity, so they're going to resist coverage that's going to turn viewers away.
All good points, but I'd also add the last point also means that the media companies themselves have a stake in maintaining the role of police as stewards of private property and capital.
I mean, there's also the fact that most reporters are ordinary people who don't want to piss off the police out of basic self-preservations, just like everybody else.
Which is another example of "problem that shouldn't exist in an ideal world, but does exist in the world we live in."
Popular support has proven to be a useless metric in the context of police reforms, except to excuse a lack of it.
People are quick to point to a lack of popular support to excuse the inaction of their preferred politicians, but never to hold those same politicians accountable when popular support is in favor of something and they still fail to act.
We've yet to see actual data showing the later. Instead, we've seen anecdotes where data is inferred.
i.e., "Look at the size of these protests, defunding is obviously popular!" followed by refusing to acknowledge surveys showing the opposite.
https://www.cato.org/blog/84-americans-oppose-civil-asset-forfeiture from 2016, where 84 percent of people oppose the idea of civil forfeiture, across pretty much all demographics and pieces of the political spectrum. How many states, cities or municipalities have proposed or passed measures to scale back, reform, or end outright this thing that has wild numbers of support?
And what kind of impact do think these reforms have had on civil forfeiture? Is it something you would classify as meaningfully addressing and eliminating or otherwise mitigating the problem?
For democrats to pass the reforms you want at the local level, they would need to control the trifecta of the state house, state senate, and state governor position. And back in 2016 when your CATO article was written, they controlled 6 trifecta's nation wide, vs 25 trifecta's held by republicans.
The problem with this approach is that the people we are trying to reach aren't the Republican base of voters, conditioned to accept double-think or outright fabrications like 'Clean Coal'.
It's a basic human response, which effects a lot more than simply the Trump vote.
Surveys show that support for BLM and disapproval for the police peaked in June, because of all the news stories and headlines. Great!
And then after that, we started seeing a lot more coverage of police abuse and brutality. So you would expect that trend to continue, right? Except no, the complete opposite happened: Support for BLM has gone down. And support for the police has gone up.
Now, there's lots of possible theories for why this happened. But the simple aggregate is this: You can't get to where you want simply by exposing police abuses and shouting "defund the police." Because it's not working. Not only is progress slowed down, but it's actually reversed direction.
So if those tactics don't work, then you need to find a new tactic. Selling people a platform they want (redirecting police funds to social services) under a message they respond to (reform) would be a new tactic. We've had that message before, but it wasn't combined with the platform. And if it's a popular platform with a popular message, then there's no reason it shouldn't work. It might still fail. But it hasn't been PROVEN to fail, which is the case for "defund the police."
This is actually incorrect. Late June is when coverage of the protests winded down considerably, and instead covered the COVID pandemic, and to a larger extend the upcoming Presidential election. The rise and fall of BLM support overlaps substantially with the timeline of the media's coverage of the protests that originated with the murder of George Floyd.
Coverage of police abuses is cumulative.
Any new story you see is going to be a story you hadn't seen before, on top of all the stories that you did see before, and so the total number of stories will increase over time even if the rate of new stories is smaller.
So the number of news stories people are aware of in September will be greater than the number than the number stories they were aware of in June.
Irrelevant; You forgot to divide by time.
International outrage over Ugandan child soldiers spiked in 2012, but that level of engagement, enthusiasm, and interest among the international community certainly did not really persist, even though stories of the subject, and in other places as well, continues to surface, even today. They didn't even arrest the guy, which was the original purpose of the documentary! They stopped trying three years ago! Other shit took its place in peoples preferred vector of information absorption and they stopped caring whether anything happened or not.
If your principle of 'coverage of abuses is cumulative' were true irrespective of time spent in the mainstream, the movement would never have diminished, which obviously isn't true.
Popular support has proven to be a useless metric in the context of police reforms, except to excuse a lack of it.
People are quick to point to a lack of popular support to excuse the inaction of their preferred politicians, but never to hold those same politicians accountable when popular support is in favor of something and they still fail to act.
We've yet to see actual data showing the later. Instead, we've seen anecdotes where data is inferred.
i.e., "Look at the size of these protests, defunding is obviously popular!" followed by refusing to acknowledge surveys showing the opposite.
https://www.cato.org/blog/84-americans-oppose-civil-asset-forfeiture from 2016, where 84 percent of people oppose the idea of civil forfeiture, across pretty much all demographics and pieces of the political spectrum. How many states, cities or municipalities have proposed or passed measures to scale back, reform, or end outright this thing that has wild numbers of support?
And what kind of impact do think these reforms have had on civil forfeiture? Is it something you would classify as meaningfully addressing and eliminating or otherwise mitigating the problem?
For democrats to pass the reforms you want at the local level, they would need to control the trifecta of the state house, state senate, and state governor position. And back in 2016 when your CATO article was written, they controlled 6 trifecta's nation wide, vs 25 trifecta's held by republicans.
Even today, those numbers at 15 vs 21.
This doesn't address my question at all, but I'm fine dropping it since the thread is at 100 pages anyway.
International outrage over Ugandan child soldiers spiked in 2012, but that level of engagement, enthusiasm, and interest among the international community certainly did not really persist, even though stories of the subject, and in other places as well, continues to surface, even today. They didn't even arrest the guy, which was the original purpose of the documentary! They stopped trying three years ago! Other shit took its place in peoples preferred vector of information absorption and they stopped caring whether anything happened or not.
If your principle of 'coverage of abuses is cumulative' were true irrespective of time spent in the mainstream, the movement would never have diminished, which obviously isn't true.
Irrelevant, because you're not really challenging any argument I actually made.
My point is that a) coverage is cumulative and b) more coverage doesn't necessarily result in more progress.
Your response is to show an example that proves example point b to be correct, and which doesn't dispute point a. Kony used to be viral on the internet. And then it stopped being viral when the public lost interest and moved onto something else. The story ran out of steam on it's own.
The same is true for stories police abuse. Eventually, the public gets fatigued by this type of story, and people stop posting them. The media can try to cover them anyway, but that means falling ratings over time as people start to tune out and look for something else. You can't make up for a lack of interest with sheer volume. Just look at how much money Disney pumped into marketing "John Carter," to no effect.
One of the keys is that you have to find ways to keep things fresh. And insisting on we maintain a failed slogan is not keeping things fresh. I mean, the main argument we've had for maintaining the slogan is that it's a rallying cry for protests. But the protests have already reached the point of diminishing return. Not only has the country largely moved onto to other stories, but the protests themselves have dwindled down. Fewer and fewer people are showing up to attend them.
If your goal is to make the protests the main metric of the movement, rather than one of several strategies, then you're already losing. Not because of popular opinion, but based on the opinion of the protesters themselves. And here's the thing: The protest leaders already knew this was going to happen. It's incredibly difficult to maintain a large scale long term protest, and they made speeches anticipating this.
And that's why every successful movement needs to be able to adapt to changing circumstance. Instead of simply complaining that the media isn't doing enough to cover police abuses, find a new angle that can bring in ratings. Instead of trying to defend a highly unpopular slogan, try coming up with some new ones.
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
We've had Black folks who have clean records who were doing nothing wrong and are murdered by police, and all that happens is people use the same tired excuses that don't even make sense, and they dig through any person who may have ever been in that person's orbit and point to whoever they can find who possibly did anything wrong and somehow that justifies them being murdered.
Yes it is. When they say that "defund the police" is a bad message because we can't afford to be seen as enemies of the police, changing that message is implicitly surrendering the argument that we should be enemies of the police.
The police already see civilians are their enemies.
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
We've had Black folks who have clean records who were doing nothing wrong and are murdered by police, and all that happens is people use the same tired excuses that don't even make sense, and they dig through any person who may have ever been in that person's orbit and point to whoever they can find who possibly did anything wrong and somehow that justifies them being murdered.
If the pro-police side is winning the PR game, then the best approach would be to figure out why that is and adapt accordingly.
Rather than simply deciding that PR sucks and who cares and doubling down on a strategy that obviously isn't taking you where you need it to go.
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
This is really stretching the metaphor beyond what it was used for.
The problem people are having with your viewpoint here is it's not remotely clear how you plan to sustainably enact any of the change you want.
"I want politicians to do unpopular thing" - why in the hell would they do that? What leverage are you planning too sustainably use to promote it?
The activist left doesn't have the numbers to primary left wing politicians, and your solution is to decide messaging your position effectively isn't important?
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
Things are a lot harder than they used to be, but that doesn't mean you simply give up on marketing altogether and double down on strategies that are losing.
The republicans pass policies that are wildly unpopular, based on superior marketing.
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
We've had Black folks who have clean records who were doing nothing wrong and are murdered by police, and all that happens is people use the same tired excuses that don't even make sense, and they dig through any person who may have ever been in that person's orbit and point to whoever they can find who possibly did anything wrong and somehow that justifies them being murdered.
If the pro-police side is winning the PR game, then the best approach would be to figure out why that is and adapt accordingly.
Rather than simply deciding that PR sucks and who cares and doubling down on a strategy that obviously isn't taking you where you need it to go.
Because there have been 3 decades of law and order on TV along side a whole host of other pro cop propaganda. Gonna have to get a lot of tv shows canceled, and movies memory holed, to even remotely have a chance at that game.
Like, I dunno, if ya'll know about American history at all but this has been a problem for a very very long time. It isn't just optics, it isn't folks not knowing about all the awful shit police have done and are doing, they just don't care! A good slice of America is HAPPY and CONTENT with the state of things and has been for a very very long time and I mean America elected the most blatantly racist and bigotted person as president in 2016.
You place far too much on the hope that folks would just do the right thing if they knew about it.
Like, I dunno, if ya'll know about American history at all but this has been a problem for a very very long time. It isn't just optics, it isn't folks not knowing about all the awful shit police have done and are doing, they just don't care! A good slice of America is HAPPY and CONTENT with the state of things and has been for a very very long time and I mean America elected the most blatantly racist and bigotted person as president in 2016.
You place far too much on the hope that folks would just do the right thing if they knew about it.
Agreed that the issue isn't one of illumination at this point, the issue is that that people with the power to make change aren't being affected by the issue enough to need to do anything.
The point of direct action is to make the people in power notice when all their drones constituents/employees aren't staying quiet and happily producing for them. If they won't hear people asking politely, then other ways have to be tried.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
I'm in favor of disbanding the police but will accept significant defunding as a real huge step forward.
I don't think it's possible to reform policing in the US to the point where it serves the public.
I also don't think it's very likely that we will ever defund or disband the police, because the majority of the US either really loves policing or can't imagine a world without it. But my goal is still to convince more people that it is in fact a good idea to disband the police because I think it'll make the world better if we're able to do it.
I feel like the consistent arguing about the deployment of a specific slogan/phrase is really beside every single useful point.
I mean my opinion is definitely that the people who agree with me should deploy the messaging that will make everyone agree with me, but I don't think it's remotely possible to predict what that is or to make sure that everyone who shares my opinion agrees to use it.
Edit: Also I don't think I'd describe a national propaganda network as "Better marketing".
It's certainly really useful, but it's not something you can replicate by massaging your phrasing properly. You need to establish a national news network, make sure it's trusted, and then pump out a ton of propaganda via that news network.
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
This is really stretching the metaphor beyond what it was used for.
The problem people are having with your viewpoint here is it's not remotely clear how you plan to sustainably enact any of the change you want.
"I want politicians to do unpopular thing" - why in the hell would they do that? What leverage are you planning too sustainably use to promote it?
The activist left doesn't have the numbers to primary left wing politicians, and your solution is to decide messaging your position effectively isn't important?
If things don't change, I suspect we'll be seeing plenty of protests against police brutality once winter ends.
"I want politicians to do unpopular thing" - why in the hell would they do that? What leverage are you planning too sustainably use to promote it?
Other than individual ethical obligation? Not wanting to have their city's economy collapse as constant protests disrupt the ability for people to go to work, visit businesses, etc. If there is a problem currently it's that the protests aren't doing enough pain to the right people.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+7
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm in favor of disbanding the police but will accept significant defunding as a real huge step forward.
I don't think it's possible to reform policing in the US to the point where it serves the public.
I also don't think it's very likely that we will ever defund or disband the police, because the majority of the US either really loves policing or can't imagine a world without it. But my goal is still to convince more people that it is in fact a good idea to disband the police because I think it'll make the world better if we're able to do it.
I feel like the consistent arguing about the deployment of a specific slogan/phrase is really beside every single useful point.
I mean my opinion is definitely that the people who agree with me should deploy the messaging that will make everyone agree with me, but I don't think it's remotely possible to predict what that is or to make sure that everyone who shares my opinion agrees to use it.
Edit: Also I don't think I'd describe a national propaganda network as "Better marketing".
It's certainly really useful, but it's not something you can replicate by massaging your phrasing properly. You need to establish a national news network, make sure it's trusted, and then pump out a ton of propaganda via that news network.
If you want these things to happen, wouldn't you want the best argument you can make, targeted at the people you want to make it to?
Because "defund the police" is not that. Again, to be clear, I am not talking about one iota change to your desired policies. I am literally talking about the literal phrase "defund the police" and no more.
Like, I dunno, if ya'll know about American history at all but this has been a problem for a very very long time. It isn't just optics, it isn't folks not knowing about all the awful shit police have done and are doing, they just don't care! A good slice of America is HAPPY and CONTENT with the state of things and has been for a very very long time and I mean America elected the most blatantly racist and bigotted person as president in 2016.
You place far too much on the hope that folks would just do the right thing if they knew about it.
*Raises hand* I didn't realize how corrupt the police are as an institution until sometime in the second half of the Obama administration. Until then I thought it was mostly a localized problem that happened in Bad Places (e.g., Chicago, rural towns, The South).
Now that I know, though, I still don't know what I can meaningfully do about it. I vote, obviously, but that is not (yet) an avenue for change on this issue, at least where I live. I haven't joined any protests because I do not have the spoons right now. What other practical actions can I take?
Voting is part of the process. Getting folks elected who are willing to push forth the kind of policy changes we need is an option other than protesting really but both of these tend to go hand in hand.
From your home supporting the orgs or protests or being a voice for those online helps. Far as I can tell. The first step of the process is educating yourself.
I'm in favor of disbanding the police but will accept significant defunding as a real huge step forward.
I don't think it's possible to reform policing in the US to the point where it serves the public.
I also don't think it's very likely that we will ever defund or disband the police, because the majority of the US either really loves policing or can't imagine a world without it. But my goal is still to convince more people that it is in fact a good idea to disband the police because I think it'll make the world better if we're able to do it.
I feel like the consistent arguing about the deployment of a specific slogan/phrase is really beside every single useful point.
I mean my opinion is definitely that the people who agree with me should deploy the messaging that will make everyone agree with me, but I don't think it's remotely possible to predict what that is or to make sure that everyone who shares my opinion agrees to use it.
Edit: Also I don't think I'd describe a national propaganda network as "Better marketing".
It's certainly really useful, but it's not something you can replicate by massaging your phrasing properly. You need to establish a national news network, make sure it's trusted, and then pump out a ton of propaganda via that news network.
If you want these things to happen, wouldn't you want the best argument you can make, targeted at the people you want to make it to?
Because "defund the police" is not that. Again, to be clear, I am not talking about one iota change to your desired policies. I am literally talking about the literal phrase "defund the police" and no more.
Right but as I've asked a few over the past 6 danged months of talking around this:
If I accept that you're 100% correct what do I do with that? Like I'm not in charge of chants. I don't get to set slogans. I haven't really even had an opportunity to use the phrase because I've been inside for 9 months. I don't know of any effort I could expend to make anyone use it any less.
It feels like trying to fight against the use of "Hey hey, ho ho, [thing we don't like] has got to go!"
Also I'm pretty sure that the folks who find "defund the police" too distressing to consider are in fact super not on board for any variation of "disband the police" yet. I really don't think I can massage that into something that sounds sufficiently non-threatening to folks who are leery about a much less extreme phrasing/idea.
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I dunno Schrodinger, we’re at like 300 posts in 3 days Monday morning quarterbacking this particular summer of protest and I’m gonna say unless you have a particularly pertinent social organizing background with receipts this all feels like concern trolling
I dunno Schrodinger, we’re at like 300 posts in 3 days Monday morning quarterbacking this particular summer of protest and I’m gonna say unless you have a particularly pertinent social organizing background with receipts this all feels like concern trolling
This post more or less explains it's own irrelevance.
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
This is really stretching the metaphor beyond what it was used for.
The problem people are having with your viewpoint here is it's not remotely clear how you plan to sustainably enact any of the change you want.
"I want politicians to do unpopular thing" - why in the hell would they do that? What leverage are you planning too sustainably use to promote it?
The activist left doesn't have the numbers to primary left wing politicians, and your solution is to decide messaging your position effectively isn't important?
You have to keep talking about something and thumping the drum to build the awareness first of all. There are Americans who aren't first-hand victims of police brutality, notably the white population, so they don't believe the matter is as critical as it is. Which is supremely fucked! So how do their minds get changed?
1) We talk to them over and over and show them evidence over and over and over.
2) We wait for them to be victims themselves which is unlikely.
I'd rather go with option one.
As far as leverage goes, a lot of us in the 2020 election compromised and voted with the Democratic Party and look how relatively narrow (when counting by millions) the vote margin was. We were told to vote this time, we did, and now we're being told we have no leverage in domestic policy. Thanks for that electricity, you're confirming a thing I was worried about - being told to participate and not get any bones thrown our way on enacting change.
Nobody is under the illusion that changing the structure of law enforcement will be easy, but it has to fucking start right now because the longer it gets punted down the road the harder it becomes to change.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
This is really stretching the metaphor beyond what it was used for.
The problem people are having with your viewpoint here is it's not remotely clear how you plan to sustainably enact any of the change you want.
"I want politicians to do unpopular thing" - why in the hell would they do that? What leverage are you planning too sustainably use to promote it?
The activist left doesn't have the numbers to primary left wing politicians, and your solution is to decide messaging your position effectively isn't important?
You have to keep talking about something and thumping the drum to build the awareness first of all. There are Americans who aren't first-hand victims of police brutality, notably the white population, so they don't believe the matter is as critical as it is. Which is supremely fucked! So how do their minds get changed?
1) We talk to them over and over and show them evidence over and over and over.
2) We wait for them to be victims themselves which is unlikely.
I'd rather go with option one.
As far as leverage goes, a lot of us in the 2020 election compromised and voted with the Democratic Party and look how relatively narrow (when counting by millions) the vote margin was. We were told to vote this time, we did, and now we're being told we have no leverage in domestic policy. Thanks for that electricity, you're confirming a thing I was worried about - being told to participate and not get any bones thrown our way on enacting change.
Nobody is under the illusion that changing the structure of law enforcement will be easy, but it has to fucking start right now because the longer it gets punted down the road the harder it becomes to change.
Wait, what the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about a specific slogan that has spread that is actually not particularly effective.
Fencingsax on
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
And a bit more on "effective messaging," the wall we're up against is twofold:
1) Americans who are turned off to ANY politics one way or the other and go with maintaining the status quo because anything else might change their life negatively in their head (it won't).
2) It is not the duty of the oppressed to make the oppressors' lives more comfortable. Black people don't owe it to white America to soften the blow of "the police are killing us pretty openly." How do you even softball that? That's what the situation is.
+6
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Wait, what the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about a specific slogan that has spread that is actually not particularly effective.
If you want to play the "we haven't market tested this political slogan" all I can say is, the issue has continued to come to a head during a pandemic which hasn't helped. Not to mention that the institutions that benefit from police brutality also happen to be the institutions that would communicate the issue to Americans (government officials and 24/7 news media). They don't want the problem solved so they're going to attack any advocacy whatsoever. The tactic they are running with is "OH GEE WHAT DOES IT EVEN MEAN" even though it means what it means.
You defund the police.
Less funds means less officers.
It means less military equipment.
It's straight-forward. And I again assert I could give a flying fuck for how white Americans feel about there being less cops because the current presence is literally assaulting and murdering the rest of us.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It isn't about comfort, it's about communicating effectively. The policies we are talking about generally have broad support among the populace. We can actually work to effect change with what we have! The phrase "defund the police" enjoys no such popularity, and just makes it harder to effect any change we might want to begin with.
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
This is really stretching the metaphor beyond what it was used for.
The problem people are having with your viewpoint here is it's not remotely clear how you plan to sustainably enact any of the change you want.
"I want politicians to do unpopular thing" - why in the hell would they do that? What leverage are you planning too sustainably use to promote it?
The activist left doesn't have the numbers to primary left wing politicians, and your solution is to decide messaging your position effectively isn't important?
You have to keep talking about something and thumping the drum to build the awareness first of all. There are Americans who aren't first-hand victims of police brutality, notably the white population, so they don't believe the matter is as critical as it is. Which is supremely fucked! So how do their minds get changed?
1) We talk to them over and over and show them evidence over and over and over.
2) We wait for them to be victims themselves which is unlikely.
I'd rather go with option one.
As far as leverage goes, a lot of us in the 2020 election compromised and voted with the Democratic Party and look how relatively narrow (when counting by millions) the vote margin was. We were told to vote this time, we did, and now we're being told we have no leverage in domestic policy. Thanks for that electricity, you're confirming a thing I was worried about - being told to participate and not get any bones thrown our way on enacting change.
Nobody is under the illusion that changing the structure of law enforcement will be easy, but it has to fucking start right now because the longer it gets punted down the road the harder it becomes to change.
Why do American activists have no apparent clue about how the American political system works?
Because the bolded is not complicated: can you plausibly threaten current Democratic politicians from the Left? Because that's the ballgame if you want legislative changes - the Civil Rights movement involved substantial legislative changes and needed to accomplish that by making it the popular plurality to do.
Because the opposition you are facing, the alternative, doesn't care at all about your cause but would love to be in power so they can continue to not care about.
This entire discussion has focused on a core problem which is "Defund the Police" polls poorly even amongst notionally Left-aligned minority groups. Which is a problem! The 1990s crime bill was terrible for black Americans, but at the time it also polled well amongst them and lo and behold it passed.
electricitylikesme on
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It isn't about comfort, it's about communicating effectively. The policies we are talking about generally have broad support among the populace. We can actually work to effect change with what we have! The phrase "defund the police" enjoys no such popularity, and just makes it harder to effect any change we might want to begin with.
"Cops are killing us."
"Okay how about we shoot you in the leg instead and ban chokeholds?"
"Cops are still shooting us to kill us and are choking us with their knees?"
"Okay how about we shoot you in the leg instead and ban knee-based choking?"
"Cops are still shooting us to kill us and are choking us with chokeholds again."
"Okay how about..."
Frankly, "communicating effectively" is a huge load of shit. It's STRAIGHT FORWARD what the issue is and what the solution is. Cops don't need to respond to every situation with guns, they don't need military equipment, and we don't need as many cops as we have. "Well explain why," says you.
BECAUSE
THEY
ARE
MURDERING
CIVILIANS
Edit - Like are we at the point of having to explain why murder is bad? Is that what your objection is?
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
This is really stretching the metaphor beyond what it was used for.
The problem people are having with your viewpoint here is it's not remotely clear how you plan to sustainably enact any of the change you want.
"I want politicians to do unpopular thing" - why in the hell would they do that? What leverage are you planning too sustainably use to promote it?
The activist left doesn't have the numbers to primary left wing politicians, and your solution is to decide messaging your position effectively isn't important?
You're right. But again I think you're misreading where the movement is at this point in time -- this may be a decades or more long struggle -- when I said war of attrition, I meant it. This sort of sea-change in public opinion doesn't happen because protests happened a couple summers, six years apart. But I'll tell you that it's clear to me that there's definitely momentum forward; what happened following Ferguson and the protests were a lot less widespread than what happened after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Dang, I'm really upset that apparently I live in this Black Mirror style dystopia where ratings dictate the direction of social progress. Looks like it's about time we hired advertising execs to freshen up the cast of BLM, maybe get some writers to freshen up the scripts for the next season.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
This is really stretching the metaphor beyond what it was used for.
The problem people are having with your viewpoint here is it's not remotely clear how you plan to sustainably enact any of the change you want.
"I want politicians to do unpopular thing" - why in the hell would they do that? What leverage are you planning too sustainably use to promote it?
The activist left doesn't have the numbers to primary left wing politicians, and your solution is to decide messaging your position effectively isn't important?
You have to keep talking about something and thumping the drum to build the awareness first of all. There are Americans who aren't first-hand victims of police brutality, notably the white population, so they don't believe the matter is as critical as it is. Which is supremely fucked! So how do their minds get changed?
1) We talk to them over and over and show them evidence over and over and over.
2) We wait for them to be victims themselves which is unlikely.
I'd rather go with option one.
As far as leverage goes, a lot of us in the 2020 election compromised and voted with the Democratic Party and look how relatively narrow (when counting by millions) the vote margin was. We were told to vote this time, we did, and now we're being told we have no leverage in domestic policy. Thanks for that electricity, you're confirming a thing I was worried about - being told to participate and not get any bones thrown our way on enacting change.
Nobody is under the illusion that changing the structure of law enforcement will be easy, but it has to fucking start right now because the longer it gets punted down the road the harder it becomes to change.
Why do American activists have no apparent clue about how the American political system works?
Because the bolded is not complicated: can you plausibly threaten current Democratic politicians from the Left? Because that's the ballgame if you want legislative changes - the Civil Rights movement involved substantial legislative changes and needed to accomplish that by making it the popular plurality to do.
Because the opposition you are facing, the alternative, doesn't care at all about your cause but would love to be in power so they can continue to not care about.
This entire discussion has focused on a core problem which is "Defund the Police" poll poorly even amongst notionally Left-aligned minority groups. Which is a problem! The 1990s crime bill was terrible for black Americans, but at the time it also polled well amongst them and lo and behold it passed.
Why the flying fuck do you think we're here talking about it and people are marching in the streets over it?! Holy shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I dunno Schrodinger, we’re at like 300 posts in 3 days Monday morning quarterbacking this particular summer of protest and I’m gonna say unless you have a particularly pertinent social organizing background with receipts this all feels like concern trolling
This post more or less explains it's own irrelevance.
Not really. We have a novella at this point on the mistakes and remedies that would lead to results and I’m not buying it.
The activist left has successfully pushed the needle on support for BLM and reallocation resources away from the police. Cities like LA have successfully started diverting resources away (see the work done to get officers out of libraries as an example).
This much tripping over a slogan suggests something other than sincerity. Slogans are not really the right tool to communicate nuance; their purpose is to get people to engage and DTP absolutely has accomplished that.
The people who are reflexively reacting to it are not going to be convinced by a different choice of words; they believe in the few bad apples narrative, they believe in the thin blue line, they believe blue lives matter. The other side, the one that believes in reform are already on our side.
Your point about primarying misses that this is change that is going to happen at the hyper local level vs. like, the senate first. While no one ran in the last election on DTP, there are state level positions that are doing this and some are going to win. We need something radical like DTP to shift the Overton window knowing that the ultimate outcome of this is going to be some kind of reform.
+9
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
By the way, the Civil Rights movement was not a moderate movement. People focus on Malcom X's "Ballots or bullts" type stuff, but even Dr MLK Jr was pushing anti-capitalist messaging (as he should). The original Black Panthers organized a lot of community support, including food programs. It was extreme, but all in a positive way.
Conservative and Moderate America attacked the Civil Rights through the media by portraying the guys with the guns and making it all look scary.
We're in no different a situation right now with defunding the police. Everyone opposed to it is framing it as "they want anarchy, no cops at all!"
No, we want only as many cops as needed, and those cops need to be thoroughly trained, screened for being racist shits, and accountability needs to be swift and harsh.
+6
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm fucking hungry and ranting at this point so my last sticking point is,
We get it, you guys think the left isn't being "effective" enough in messaging. So what I want to know is, why aren't you helping? You're focused on berating. I'm left with the following conclusion: you either
- don't think the police need to be reined in at all
- don't think the police need to be reined in that much
Either way that's not good.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
We are very clearly talking past each other, and I've been pretty explicit with what I'm talking about, so I don't know how to fix that.
+5
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Posts
All good points, but I'd also add the last point also means that the media companies themselves have a stake in maintaining the role of police as stewards of private property and capital.
I mean, there's also the fact that most reporters are ordinary people who don't want to piss off the police out of basic self-preservations, just like everybody else.
Which is another example of "problem that shouldn't exist in an ideal world, but does exist in the world we live in."
For democrats to pass the reforms you want at the local level, they would need to control the trifecta of the state house, state senate, and state governor position. And back in 2016 when your CATO article was written, they controlled 6 trifecta's nation wide, vs 25 trifecta's held by republicans.
Even today, those numbers at 15 vs 21.
Irrelevant; You forgot to divide by time.
International outrage over Ugandan child soldiers spiked in 2012, but that level of engagement, enthusiasm, and interest among the international community certainly did not really persist, even though stories of the subject, and in other places as well, continues to surface, even today. They didn't even arrest the guy, which was the original purpose of the documentary! They stopped trying three years ago! Other shit took its place in peoples preferred vector of information absorption and they stopped caring whether anything happened or not.
If your principle of 'coverage of abuses is cumulative' were true irrespective of time spent in the mainstream, the movement would never have diminished, which obviously isn't true.
This doesn't address my question at all, but I'm fine dropping it since the thread is at 100 pages anyway.
Irrelevant, because you're not really challenging any argument I actually made.
My point is that a) coverage is cumulative and b) more coverage doesn't necessarily result in more progress.
Your response is to show an example that proves example point b to be correct, and which doesn't dispute point a. Kony used to be viral on the internet. And then it stopped being viral when the public lost interest and moved onto something else. The story ran out of steam on it's own.
The same is true for stories police abuse. Eventually, the public gets fatigued by this type of story, and people stop posting them. The media can try to cover them anyway, but that means falling ratings over time as people start to tune out and look for something else. You can't make up for a lack of interest with sheer volume. Just look at how much money Disney pumped into marketing "John Carter," to no effect.
One of the keys is that you have to find ways to keep things fresh. And insisting on we maintain a failed slogan is not keeping things fresh. I mean, the main argument we've had for maintaining the slogan is that it's a rallying cry for protests. But the protests have already reached the point of diminishing return. Not only has the country largely moved onto to other stories, but the protests themselves have dwindled down. Fewer and fewer people are showing up to attend them.
If your goal is to make the protests the main metric of the movement, rather than one of several strategies, then you're already losing. Not because of popular opinion, but based on the opinion of the protesters themselves. And here's the thing: The protest leaders already knew this was going to happen. It's incredibly difficult to maintain a large scale long term protest, and they made speeches anticipating this.
And that's why every successful movement needs to be able to adapt to changing circumstance. Instead of simply complaining that the media isn't doing enough to cover police abuses, find a new angle that can bring in ratings. Instead of trying to defend a highly unpopular slogan, try coming up with some new ones.
Rosa Parks was literally hand picked for marketability.
This isn't a new concept.
We've had Black folks who have clean records who were doing nothing wrong and are murdered by police, and all that happens is people use the same tired excuses that don't even make sense, and they dig through any person who may have ever been in that person's orbit and point to whoever they can find who possibly did anything wrong and somehow that justifies them being murdered.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Okay, listen I'm thinking part of the reason we're talking past each other is that you think we're much further along in the process of compelling the needed social reforms than we are; hear me out the Rosa Parks photograph was staged literally the day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregated busing was illegal.
Believe me when I tell you, at this point in time, at least on the matter of policing --we are no where near where we can reliably do these kind of staged things, where the institutions themselves bend over backwards to help us build a national consensus about doing what is morally necessary.
If the pro-police side is winning the PR game, then the best approach would be to figure out why that is and adapt accordingly.
Rather than simply deciding that PR sucks and who cares and doubling down on a strategy that obviously isn't taking you where you need it to go.
This is really stretching the metaphor beyond what it was used for.
The problem people are having with your viewpoint here is it's not remotely clear how you plan to sustainably enact any of the change you want.
"I want politicians to do unpopular thing" - why in the hell would they do that? What leverage are you planning too sustainably use to promote it?
The activist left doesn't have the numbers to primary left wing politicians, and your solution is to decide messaging your position effectively isn't important?
Things are a lot harder than they used to be, but that doesn't mean you simply give up on marketing altogether and double down on strategies that are losing.
The republicans pass policies that are wildly unpopular, based on superior marketing.
Because there have been 3 decades of law and order on TV along side a whole host of other pro cop propaganda. Gonna have to get a lot of tv shows canceled, and movies memory holed, to even remotely have a chance at that game.
You place far too much on the hope that folks would just do the right thing if they knew about it.
Agreed that the issue isn't one of illumination at this point, the issue is that that people with the power to make change aren't being affected by the issue enough to need to do anything.
The point of direct action is to make the people in power notice when all their drones constituents/employees aren't staying quiet and happily producing for them. If they won't hear people asking politely, then other ways have to be tried.
I don't think it's possible to reform policing in the US to the point where it serves the public.
I also don't think it's very likely that we will ever defund or disband the police, because the majority of the US either really loves policing or can't imagine a world without it. But my goal is still to convince more people that it is in fact a good idea to disband the police because I think it'll make the world better if we're able to do it.
I feel like the consistent arguing about the deployment of a specific slogan/phrase is really beside every single useful point.
I mean my opinion is definitely that the people who agree with me should deploy the messaging that will make everyone agree with me, but I don't think it's remotely possible to predict what that is or to make sure that everyone who shares my opinion agrees to use it.
Edit: Also I don't think I'd describe a national propaganda network as "Better marketing".
It's certainly really useful, but it's not something you can replicate by massaging your phrasing properly. You need to establish a national news network, make sure it's trusted, and then pump out a ton of propaganda via that news network.
If things don't change, I suspect we'll be seeing plenty of protests against police brutality once winter ends.
Other than individual ethical obligation? Not wanting to have their city's economy collapse as constant protests disrupt the ability for people to go to work, visit businesses, etc. If there is a problem currently it's that the protests aren't doing enough pain to the right people.
If you want these things to happen, wouldn't you want the best argument you can make, targeted at the people you want to make it to?
Because "defund the police" is not that. Again, to be clear, I am not talking about one iota change to your desired policies. I am literally talking about the literal phrase "defund the police" and no more.
*Raises hand* I didn't realize how corrupt the police are as an institution until sometime in the second half of the Obama administration. Until then I thought it was mostly a localized problem that happened in Bad Places (e.g., Chicago, rural towns, The South).
Now that I know, though, I still don't know what I can meaningfully do about it. I vote, obviously, but that is not (yet) an avenue for change on this issue, at least where I live. I haven't joined any protests because I do not have the spoons right now. What other practical actions can I take?
From your home supporting the orgs or protests or being a voice for those online helps. Far as I can tell. The first step of the process is educating yourself.
Right but as I've asked a few over the past 6 danged months of talking around this:
If I accept that you're 100% correct what do I do with that? Like I'm not in charge of chants. I don't get to set slogans. I haven't really even had an opportunity to use the phrase because I've been inside for 9 months. I don't know of any effort I could expend to make anyone use it any less.
It feels like trying to fight against the use of "Hey hey, ho ho, [thing we don't like] has got to go!"
Also I'm pretty sure that the folks who find "defund the police" too distressing to consider are in fact super not on board for any variation of "disband the police" yet. I really don't think I can massage that into something that sounds sufficiently non-threatening to folks who are leery about a much less extreme phrasing/idea.
This post more or less explains it's own irrelevance.
1) We talk to them over and over and show them evidence over and over and over.
2) We wait for them to be victims themselves which is unlikely.
I'd rather go with option one.
As far as leverage goes, a lot of us in the 2020 election compromised and voted with the Democratic Party and look how relatively narrow (when counting by millions) the vote margin was. We were told to vote this time, we did, and now we're being told we have no leverage in domestic policy. Thanks for that electricity, you're confirming a thing I was worried about - being told to participate and not get any bones thrown our way on enacting change.
Nobody is under the illusion that changing the structure of law enforcement will be easy, but it has to fucking start right now because the longer it gets punted down the road the harder it becomes to change.
Wait, what the fuck are you talking about? We are talking about a specific slogan that has spread that is actually not particularly effective.
1) Americans who are turned off to ANY politics one way or the other and go with maintaining the status quo because anything else might change their life negatively in their head (it won't).
2) It is not the duty of the oppressed to make the oppressors' lives more comfortable. Black people don't owe it to white America to soften the blow of "the police are killing us pretty openly." How do you even softball that? That's what the situation is.
You defund the police.
Less funds means less officers.
It means less military equipment.
It's straight-forward. And I again assert I could give a flying fuck for how white Americans feel about there being less cops because the current presence is literally assaulting and murdering the rest of us.
Why do American activists have no apparent clue about how the American political system works?
Because the bolded is not complicated: can you plausibly threaten current Democratic politicians from the Left? Because that's the ballgame if you want legislative changes - the Civil Rights movement involved substantial legislative changes and needed to accomplish that by making it the popular plurality to do.
Because the opposition you are facing, the alternative, doesn't care at all about your cause but would love to be in power so they can continue to not care about.
This entire discussion has focused on a core problem which is "Defund the Police" polls poorly even amongst notionally Left-aligned minority groups. Which is a problem! The 1990s crime bill was terrible for black Americans, but at the time it also polled well amongst them and lo and behold it passed.
"Okay how about we shoot you in the leg instead and ban chokeholds?"
"Cops are still shooting us to kill us and are choking us with their knees?"
"Okay how about we shoot you in the leg instead and ban knee-based choking?"
"Cops are still shooting us to kill us and are choking us with chokeholds again."
"Okay how about..."
Frankly, "communicating effectively" is a huge load of shit. It's STRAIGHT FORWARD what the issue is and what the solution is. Cops don't need to respond to every situation with guns, they don't need military equipment, and we don't need as many cops as we have. "Well explain why," says you.
BECAUSE
THEY
ARE
MURDERING
CIVILIANS
Edit - Like are we at the point of having to explain why murder is bad? Is that what your objection is?
You're right. But again I think you're misreading where the movement is at this point in time -- this may be a decades or more long struggle -- when I said war of attrition, I meant it. This sort of sea-change in public opinion doesn't happen because protests happened a couple summers, six years apart. But I'll tell you that it's clear to me that there's definitely momentum forward; what happened following Ferguson and the protests were a lot less widespread than what happened after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Why the flying fuck do you think we're here talking about it and people are marching in the streets over it?! Holy shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!
Not really. We have a novella at this point on the mistakes and remedies that would lead to results and I’m not buying it.
The activist left has successfully pushed the needle on support for BLM and reallocation resources away from the police. Cities like LA have successfully started diverting resources away (see the work done to get officers out of libraries as an example).
This much tripping over a slogan suggests something other than sincerity. Slogans are not really the right tool to communicate nuance; their purpose is to get people to engage and DTP absolutely has accomplished that.
The people who are reflexively reacting to it are not going to be convinced by a different choice of words; they believe in the few bad apples narrative, they believe in the thin blue line, they believe blue lives matter. The other side, the one that believes in reform are already on our side.
Your point about primarying misses that this is change that is going to happen at the hyper local level vs. like, the senate first. While no one ran in the last election on DTP, there are state level positions that are doing this and some are going to win. We need something radical like DTP to shift the Overton window knowing that the ultimate outcome of this is going to be some kind of reform.
Conservative and Moderate America attacked the Civil Rights through the media by portraying the guys with the guns and making it all look scary.
We're in no different a situation right now with defunding the police. Everyone opposed to it is framing it as "they want anarchy, no cops at all!"
No, we want only as many cops as needed, and those cops need to be thoroughly trained, screened for being racist shits, and accountability needs to be swift and harsh.
We get it, you guys think the left isn't being "effective" enough in messaging. So what I want to know is, why aren't you helping? You're focused on berating. I'm left with the following conclusion: you either
- don't think the police need to be reined in at all
- don't think the police need to be reined in that much
Either way that's not good.