comment: >
  
  Someone woke up today and put on their brown moralist pants. This is no more than an appeal to incrementalism.
context: /u/asdf0909 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  In my city the police budget takes up 28 percent of it's budget. We also have one of the highest crime rates in our country. The police budget used to take up 17% in the early 2000's, and has been steadily rising since then... Along with the crime rates. They bought a robot dog from Boston dynamics, they're constantly upgrading thier equipment, increasing salaries, ect. It's clear that whatever the police are doing is not working. Polititions are scared to run on the platform of police budget cuts, the police always put up a massive stink and nothing ever happens. 
  Now for the nuance. Our government is handling crime reactively instead of proactively. They don't follow up on almost anything unless a crime has been committed, which leads to dangerous scenarios. They constantly arrest the same people for public drunkenness and petty crime. We have a very high crime rate, yet the overwhelming majority of cops I see are traffic cops, which isn't even an effective way of controlling traffic. 
  We have a large homeless population in a country where winters get to -40° C. We have an even larger poor population, our public education system isn't the best, and we have very limited resources to help people integrate back into society. Cost of living is rising, and people aren't able to feed thier families, of course a certain percentage of people will turn to crime. People need to survive, and if they aren't given the necessary resources, they're going to have to find them some other way. The way we do things just doesn't make sense. We keep feeding the criminal population by defending public services, then raise the police budget to put more of them in jail. It's ridiculously backwards. 
  Statements like "defund the police" and "eat the rich* are absolutely necessary. People see the ultimacy of backwards, ineffective policies but can't realistically do anything, but they can at least raise public awareness. The more people that believe an ideal means the more people who will vote for someone who supports that ideal come election time. Not everyone wants to invest into politics, a lot are happy to just exist and not worry about them. Phrases like these grab attention and prompt an individual to ask questions, which could eventually lead to positive change. 
  No one saying "defund the police" seriously thinks we should cut out police from society, we just want people to have the necessary resources for survival so they don't have to turn to crime. Eating the rich seams like a great place to get some of those resources.
  I'm from Canada, but currently living in Thailand. There's almost no police here, but there's also almost no crime. Things don't often get stolen, people don't often get murdered. Walking down a back alley in the capital, Bangkok, will get you an interesting conversation, and not mugged. There's almost no homelessness, although there is poverty. It's clear to me that whatever we're doing in North America is not working, we desperately need change. >
  
  Damn.  Thanks for this.  Really integrates a lot of what I’ve been pondering lately.
  I keep coming back to economic Growthism (growth purely for the sake of growth) as the primary culprit.  It sounds simplistic at first, but it is the prime driver of inequality.  The rise of capitalism was founded on colonialism…which was essentially a way to extract and exploit with no strings attached.  It’s ugly.  
  And now, here we are looking at pretty dramatic global inequality. The places that are supposed to be thriving (because GDP as an ideology says a growing economy makes for happy people) are actually pretty miserable (statistically declining since the 50s).  And the rest…well they just get more of the same.  Rich countries exploiting them in the name of growth.  And they’re feeling the brunt of climate-related changes.
  Infinite growth is impossible.  We’re seeing now that it puts tremendous pressure on systems.  Eventually, something has to give.  There’s no debate anymore…infinite growth is synonymous with collapse.  Ecologic collapse (obvious).  Social collapse (shifts to privatization, massive disruptions to food systems, mental health problems, crime, etc etc etc).  It’s all related.  And while the transition is likely to be a mess…growth has to stop.  It had to stop decades ago.  
  None of it is surprising.
  degrowth >
  
  I completely agree, but at the same time, it's almost impossible to stop the tide of progress. I bet you there were Mayans thousands of years ago that petitioned against deforestation, and yet they eventually grew so big so fast that they deforested thier entire land mass, causing the collapse of thier society alongside mass poverty, famine, ect. This all happened about a millennia before the Spaniards came. 
  I want to believe that humans are capable of change en masse, and I think we actually are.. it's just the timeline isn't decades, it's century's or even millennia.   At this point I think we just have to hold out for nuclear fusion, once we have unlimited energy, we should theoretically have the ability to generate enough resources for all. Or perhaps we actually can slowly shift the cultural zeitgeist to a more sustainable one, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe the only thing that we'll actually learn from is another societal collapse, either way, things are getting bad and something absolutely has to give. Thanks for sharing your perspective as well :). >
  
  Respectfully, I believe you may share a different set of values regarding Liberalism vs Radicalism than those from whom the phrases "Eat the Rich" and "Defund the Police" were first uttered. Your use of the word "progress" suggests that you believe in capital-L Liberalism: the idea that our founding institutions and documents are fundamentally good and improvements should be made incrementally through revision (amendments).   
  In their original utterances, the phrases "Eat the Rich" and "Defund the Police" were attached to a more radical ideology, one that believes there is something fundamentally and irrevocably broken about our founding documents. 
  ​
  An adherent to capital-L Liberalism believes progress is possible within the framework provided by the Constitution through institutions like Federal, State, and local government. An adherent to a Radical leftist ideology doesn't believe that progress is possible through these frameworks or institutions because they are, at their core, broken. Progress is only had through the unseating and replacement of these documents and institutions.
  ​
  I do recognize that plenty of progressive-minded adherents to Liberalism have tried to co-opt the phrase "Defund the Police" and soften it to mean "reduce funding for the police," but it's original intention was not to get people on board, but rather to declare a Radical and not Liberal position. >
  
  
  "Defund the Police" were attached to a more radical ideology, one that believes there is something fundamentally and irrevocably broken about our founding documents.
  
  The modern policing structures that “defund the police” advocates are against are not born out of our founding documents, but out of slave patrols. Modern policing structures and practices are actually contributing to an erosion of the rights enumerated in those documents. >
  
  It is generally accepted that the first modern police force was  the London Metropolitan Police, founded on September 29 1829.  The first modern police force in the United States was Boston's from 1838.  While slave patrols likely transitioned into police forces in the south, claiming that modern policing structures are born from slave patrols is at best misleading.
  It would be more accurate to say that they are born from British imperialism and colonization of Ireland, reformed in London, and then imported to the US to fight the influence of leftists, socialists, unionists, anti-capitalists, and immigrants.
  Its best to be accurate about the sordid history of policing. 
  ​
  after writing this, I noticed that you didn't make the claim I thought you did, but felt this should be clarified anyway. >
  
  
  While slave patrols likely transitioned into police forces in the south, claiming that modern policing structures are born from slave patrols is at best misleading.
  
  ONLY in that it's missing the fact that many early police forces in the Northern US were established to break strikes and control labor. I'd recommend Behind the Police as a good primer for a high-level overview of the history of policing in the US. 
  It's Bastards all the way down.
  ​
  
  It would be more accurate to say that they are born from British imperialism and colonization of Ireland, reformed in London, and then imported to the US to fight the influence of leftists, socialists, unionists, anti-capitalists, and immigrants.
  
  this is true at a high level but I think abstracts away the intentionality with which specific policing entities were formed to specifically oppress and control certain groups. It ignores, for example, how the Texas Rangers formed as a vigilante group of white nationalists who decided to cleanse Texas by forcibly interning and deporting tens of thousands of Hispanic residents, many of whom had been in Texas for generations before the "lawmen's" families moved there. >
  
  Ah, yes, I remember the famous Patrick Henry quote, "Give me Liberty or give me modest reforms. We need to respect the Crown Loyalists." >
  
  Idk, that one definitely implies that he's not being entirely literal. 
  Movements like ACAB are definitely poorly named.
  When I hear "all cops are bad!" The first thing I think of is "that's not true"
  Patrick Henry's quote doesn't invoke a response like that >
  
  All cops are bastards is not because every cop is a criminal or an abuser. It’s because cops protect cops. You can’t participate in law enforcement without tacitly supporting all the shitty cops, which makes you a shitty cop >
  
  I just fundamentally disagree with that I guess >
  
  Police who speak up about other police don't remain on the force. The good apples get pushed out or worse, and all you're left with is a rotten barrel. >
  
  You can argue the semantics of the phrase all you want. It’s not going to stop a lot of people, whom you need the support of to affect systemic change from immediately thinking, “That’s not true.” >
  
  So where does it stop? If we compromise one objective truth to get more support, we must be very vigilant that we do not cross the line of what must not be compromised. That's hard when both that limit and what truths are the least acceptable to compromise are both as of yet unknown. >
  
  It’s clearly not an objective truth, though. >
  
  It is, though. It was explained to you already. >
  
  That explanation included the caveat that “It’s not literally all cops that are bad, it’s actually the system.”
  How can you insist a quote is “objective truth” with a hole in it like that? >
  
  As someone who engages in political organizing on a regular basis, there is a place for both. 
  When you sit down with people to have a conversation, you explain the issue. You meet them in the middle. You listen to them, they listen to you. I’ve had a lot of productive conversations with people who I didn’t agree with that way. When advocating for issues, I’ve even done these kind of conversations with elected officials and it’s worked really well. 
  But people get organizing fatigue. Meaning, life is exhausting. We don’t always have the energy to read a book that explains the nuances of climate change or have a conversation about the in depth details of a new bill. So how you communicate to people about an issue needs to be short, easy to understand, and motivating. It needs to be a message that help people understand why the cause is important and gets them excited to do that. 
  In the end, political communication is a balance between making your message easy and accessible and between being more nuanced (but risking it being more complicated). In any situation, the easy message is never the entire message. You always have the chance to understand the issue more, and ideally talk to someone who holds that view in a more nuanced way. >
  
  This is a great response, thank you. I don’t know that I’m against catch-phrases in general, I agree about how important a short catchy phrase is to make the masses understand, but it’s the extreme shock-value nature of these particular ones that I feel are doing more harm than good. I do think a pithy constructive phrase about rethinking our police strategy/accountability is so much more constructive than “defund the police.” Because you’re right, people won’t read more into it, they won’t seek out nuance, instead they’ll dig their heels in with an even more seething disdain for progressive ideas >
  
  I will note that “Defund the police” is one phrase that people seem to be really hung on too, even though it really isn’t widespread anymore. We can’t retract things that were already said. And I think part of why people are hung up on that one and not on other radical sayings is because it didn’t keep up with with its momentum. 
  During the 2020 protests, the catchphrase did a lot of what I talked about- it was easy to understand, and most importantly, it energized people to go out to the streets and protest. People started to talk about change. But the public mindset about policing just needs more educating. 
  It’s not that those phrases do more harm than good, but that change is a marathon, not a sprint. You use the catch phrases/calls for action when you need to energize people. When that isn’t happening, it’s a long and boring road of talking to people, educating them, and promoting for legislation. I don’t think it’s the catch phrase that is preventing change, but that people’s minds haven’t been changed yet. A big part of advocacy is also changing the public opinion. I’m sure that the civil rights movement had or Women’s suffrage had a lot of interesting catchphrases that back then people thought were radical and are preventing change and now we see them as pretty chill. >
  
  !delta 
  Thank you for such a well-articulated, respectful, persuasive response. I now see the value in the marathon over the sprint. Do you recommend any text I can read more about on this subject--  the long-game, or marathon of change? Thanks again. >
  
  You’re welcome! :) Honestly, nothing comes to mind at the moment (sorry about that). But tbh, I feel like I learned the most about this from experience. I volunteered with an advocacy group for a few years and got to see the different steps they took to advocate for their cause (social media, meeting with legislators, phonebaking)- even though I studied political science, I learned a lot more for seeing this work happen. Asking people who do this kind of work about the ins and out of their day to day job helped me a lot too. I hope that helps! >
  
  People who crave nuance in rhetoric shouldn't be looking for slogans. You're getting mad at something designed to be short, snappy, and memorable, because it isn't something it ever intended to be.
  Plus, like. Fundamentally, every single movement is decried as 'too extreme', that people need to 'calm down' and 'meet in the middle'. People said the same shit about MLK Jr. and the civil rights movement, they said the same shit about LGBT people dying of AIDS. This argument has never been true, it just sounds nice. >
  
  But OP isn't saying the actual movements are too extreme. They're saying that the slogans don't accurately represent the movements. People in the civil rights era had straightforward slogans like "Integration Now", "Free Mandela", and "Stop Lynching". Some people disagreed with those ideas and thought they were extreme, but they were accurate slogans. People who chanted "Integration Now" wanted schools to integrate, so they just said what they wanted and everyone understood. Whereas the people chanting "Eat the rich" do not want literal cannibalism, or even murder. So if people hear "eat the rich" and don't know about the context, they're going to think "what, that doesn't sound like a good thing to join", even if they would have been fine with "tax the rich a lot", which is what the protesters actually want.
  Although based on my experience with people who say immature things like "eat the rich", their intention is not to win new fans at all. They say those things to bond with other people in the same movement and let off steam. >
  
  
  People in the civil rights era had straightforward slogans like "Integration Now", "Free Mandela", and "Stop Lynching". 
  
  How about, "Free all political prisoners," or "I am a White agitator," or “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” >
  
  Nooo we can only have the family-friendly Civil Rights movement, not the ones with all the scary socialists, Marxists, and anarchists!!! >
  
  
  The way to persuade people is to meet them where they are, to find common ground and help them understand why their current view needs changing
  
  That's the way things should be if everyone was educated and debated intelligently. The past shown us that this is not what works well. 
  What works well is to move the Overton window to your side till you're at the center of it. 
  To give you an example, I'll talk about my country, France. In the 70ies, the far right was nearly non existent: just some extremists that everyone looked with contempt (0,75 % of votes at the presidential election at that time). Then, they forced their themes in the medias through awful catchphrases (such as "1 million unemployed is 1 million too many immigrants" or "Gas chambers are a minor poit of detail of history" for example). And once their exaggerated point of view has been heard a lot by everyone, they switch their candidates and proposed a "moderate" vision (which is still far right, but without insults to minorities). And it worked really well: today the far right party (the "national gathering") is France 2nd party in terms of votes in the presidential elections. If they tried to convince people through discussion about their ideas, they would never have obtained anything: feelings are more powerful to move someone than rationality. >
  
  This is my theory too, but is there evidence of these particular phrases working here in the US and actually moving the needle? I feel like police bodycams were agreed upon DESPITE the phrase “defund the police.” >
  
  Black Lives Matter, MeToo. Both of those simple, catchy phrases created a LOT of discussion and policy changes. Hell, Toy Story 2 had a casting couch joke in it. Do you think that sort of normalisation would be possible in a post MeToo world? A lot of people have the luxury of being able to live in ignorance of a lot of the struggles that are common in the world around them. Big, punchy slogans make those issues impossible to ignore. >
  
  !delta. Thank you for these examples, the articulate responses, and the evidence of where these phrases have worked >
  
  Thanks! Glad you found my comment useful! >
  
  
  it's infuriating most practical people who crave nuance in rhetoric
  
  If you crave nuance, you wouldn't stop at a three-word catchphrase. Instead, you would read deeper into the thing and seek, you know... nuance.
  
  The way to persuade people is to meet them where they are, to find common ground and help them understand why their current view needs changing.
  
  Cool, but why does it only have to come from one side? Why can't people resenting "Eat The Rich" also seek the common ground and start a conversation? >
  
  
  Cool, but why does it only have to come from one side? Why can't people resenting "Eat The Rich" also seek the common ground and start a conversation?
  
  Because most of the time, the people that "crave nuance" are just looking for excuses to do nothing and pretending to be deeply shocked by that slogan is good enough.
  People were doing the same thing during the Civil rights era. >
  
  Did you just ironically make the argument from that one meme everyone uses? “If you criticize society why do you still take part in it” 
  Thank you for the most useless addition to an already pointless argument that OP was making >
  
  So thats a yes? You are asking us why we have phones when phones are literally now a mandatory feature to function in society? We are not criticizing tech you dolt. Stuff like phones could exist without obscene wealth. Or are you one of those people who think that if it wasn’t for billionaires there would be no innovation? >
  
  Who suggested communism? are you so devoid of thought you equate me saying being a billionaire is bad with communism? >
  
  And? Where did I even say Eat the Rich? Or where did ai advocate for communism. I am not Pol Pot, or Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
  And Jean-Jacques Rousseau was not a communist. Being a critic of capitalism does not make you a capitalist. The biggest flaw in capitalism is it takes away the individual right, and individual rights was a large part of his philosophy. Calling anyone who is not strictly a capitalist, a communist, is such a lazy argument.
  And when he said eat the rich, he was not being literal. He was saying that once the poor are subjected enough, they will turn on the wealthy. 
  But all of this leads back to you bringing up communism fir some reason when ai never mentioned it. I am not a communist. I think reasonable wealth is fine. The idea of absolute equality is a pipe dream. What Im against is greddy assholes purposely hoarding wealth snd preventing the poor from bettering themselves. Im against people being billionares but not paying their employees a living wage.
  Understand the difference? >
  
  
  They feel driven by shock value in order to garner personal attention
  
  They literally are. That's sloganeering. That's the point.
  What happened on the Right is that it held this slogan to its literal sense, disingenuously (because that's not how sloganeering works), and that's what is stunting progress. It's the Right's denial of the issues themselves and insistance on pedantics that stunts progress, regardless of what they're called or what slogan is used to address them.
  
  What are we actually trying to achieve with these phrases? And is it working? Because to me, it sounds like it's doing more harm than good.
  
  There was no conversation at this level about police budgets beforehand, but now there is, so it seems to have worked, no? >
  
  
  What happened on the Right is that it held this slogan to its literal sense, disingenuously
  
  Except there's a significant portion of the "defund the police" user's who actually want to abolish the police. And while cannibalism is a bit of a stretch, there are many who think the rich should be executed and their resources redistributed. >
  
  And they believe these things for very observable reasons. I’m not agreeing but I definitely see where they are coming from, if the police never do their job why should they have one? If the rich ruin the lives of others…. >
  
  I dont understand how people can simultaneously belive that the US has too many people incarcerated and that cops dont do their jobs. And the rich don't ruin the lives of other; at least most don't. >
  
  The fact that you equate a policemans job performance with the number of people they incarcerate is incredibly troubling. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of how "defund the police" types view law enforcement. A theoretical idealized police force exists to protect the public and keep them safe. Activists argue (correctly) that police actually exist to protect private property and wealth. So their argument isn't that cops don't do their jobs. Their argument is that cops do do their jobs, and that job is shitty and cruel and locks up far too many people who are no threat to society at large. Hence why abolition is a talking point. That you fail to understand this shows you havent thought about the leftist position on police with any depth >
  
  Is it not a police officer's job to arrest criminals?
  
  Activists argue (correctly) 
  
  Saying something is correct doesn't make it so, especially when it's so easily shown to be false. Cops settle violent disputes every day. They take murderers and rapists off the streets. You're assuming I fail to understand it because I was just easily able to dismiss it as comically wrong. >
  
  They aren't useless traffic stops: speeding is highly dangerous and causes about 10,000 deaths each year. The person who wrote that seems to ignore the fact that people are getting pulled over for committing crimes. That's both the problem with and a sign of poor and biased reporting. >
  
  
  They aren't useless traffic stops: speeding is highly dangerous and causes about 10,000 deaths each year. The person who wrote that seems to ignore the fact that people are getting pulled over for committing crimes.
  
  It's clear you didn't read the article, because
  
  Moreover, most of the stops are pointless, other than inconveniencing citizens, or worse – “a routine practice of pretextual stops,” researchers wrote. Roughly three out of every four hours that Sacramento sheriff’s officers spent investigating traffic violations were for stops that ended in warnings, or no action, for example.
  
  If the people pulled over were committing crimes, and the job of police is to arrest people committing crimes as you attest, they why do most stops result in these purported criminals not being arrested? >
  
  Again, saying something like "most of the stops are pountless" just shows this is not reliable journalism. 
  And if you don't understand the point of giving someone a warning for speeding or having an out headlight... it's like you're just totally lacking in real world experience on the matter and incapable of critical thinking. Either that or you're being willfully obtuse. >
  
  What if we rearranged them. Defund the Rich and Eat the Police! >
  
  Radical words inspire radical change, which is what we need >
  
  Defund the rich, eat the police.
  There, is that better? >
  
  No, no. Incrementally defund the rich, incrementally eat the police. >
  
  Are you familiar with the Overton Window?
  Look at PETA. I remember when their views were considered absolutely crazy by pretty much everyone. Yet, people are much better about animals welfare than when PETA started. Sometimes you have to push the extremes so that there's more room in the middle.
  So if increasing the top tax bracket is the most extreme thing people are talking about doing, it will never happened. But when people can go "I'm not in the 'eat the rich' crowd but they could pay more taxes" that becomes a lot better. >
  
  Right, I think this is a logical response. And I think you’re right, but I also see a world where “I’m not in the ‘eat the rich’ crowd” doesn’t end in “but they could pay more taxes,” it actually REPELS them from being associated with “tax the rich” mindset and community in general. We’re so team-oriented, we are always thinking of the people associated with the mindset. It’s such a shame if this stupid attention-grabbing phrase made people rethink completely which team they want to associate with >
  
  Slogans are calls to action. They need to be short and concise declaration or a problem.
  The nuance comes as you have the large consensus on the problem and direction of the solution.
  As much as it may pain us:
  “Defund the police” is not succeeding because it’s obscuring the the nuanced message of reduced police scope, reduced profiling, more community programs… it’s because the nuanced idea isn’t actually that popular. The most vocal advocate whom have adopted the reforms (San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland) have seen more crime and more homeless vagrants in the streets - not less.
  Similarly, “Eat the Rich” is not catching on because you have not secured the consensus of enough rural blue collar workers & middle class suburbanites.  The nuance of upper income tax reform to fund education and affordable housing does absolutely nothing for blue collar and older workers with a mortgage. The slogan is, somewhat correctly, associated with entitled urban 20 something liberal arts students only.
  The issue with these ideas isn’t failed nuance. 
  It’s a larger consensus building issue. >
  
  
  The most vocal advocate whom have adopted the reforms (San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland) have seen more crime and more homeless vagrants in the streets - not less.
  
  Nice cherry picking of data. Want to go ahead and look at crime data nationwide from 2020-2022 to see if the same trend applies to cities that did not defund police at all? How about including cities that increased their policing budgets?
  What's that? Amazingly, those 2 years show a nationwide upward swing in crime across cities nationwide that is completely uncorrelated with changes in police budgets? It's almost like you're trying to fit facts to an existing narrative rather than starting from data and trying to see what it says?
  ​
  
  The nuance of upper income tax reform to fund education and affordable housing does absolutely nothing for blue collar and older workers with a mortgage. 
  
  My brother in Christ, HOW does raising taxes on billionaires to fund crumbling infrastructure, pay teachers better, and pay for healthcare, etc. not help people who suffer from shitty infrastructure, understaffed schools, and high healthcare costs? The ONLY reason blue collar workers have for identifying with billionaires is because the political party they identify with has convinced them that what is good for billionaires is good for them - in complete opposition to any and all available evidence, mind you. >
  
  
  Nice cherry picking of data…
  
  I live in the San Francisco area. The crime spike can be directly attributed to mayor Breed’s policies, DA Chesa Boudin, and CA Prop 47. Breed had to do an about face and Boudin was recalled.
  I can’t speak as directly for local politics of Seattle & Portland.
  
  Want to go ahead and look at crime data nationwide from 2020-2022 to see if the same trend applies to cities that did not defund police at all 
  
  If you want to to show that defund (or the more nuanced version of it) a is good strategy, you must showcase success stories. 
  Saying that the advocates of the strategy failing doesn’t count because no one succeeded is not sufficiently compelling.
  San Francisco crime spiked harder than most other places, with again a straight line to the policy causes.
  
  My brother in Christ, HOW does raising taxes on billionaires to fund crumbling infrastructure, pay teachers better, pay for health care…
  
  Teachers and most infrastructure is paid for by the state government, not the fed. The special projects are like rail and urban infrastructure like the Big Dig. Rural and suburban voters don’t use subways or city infrastructure day to day.
  The biggest education funding initiative being talked at the federal level is student debt relief. The older folks whom paid their student debts and blue college don’t need that.
  The aggregate combined wealth of US billionaires is 4 trillion dollars. If you were to seize 100% of their wealth, you have only paid off just over 1/10th of the national debt.
  Look I personally am an urbanite and believe that billionaire wealth (and specifically, their power/influence) is egregious… but the basic math says ‘just tax the billionaires’ is not sufficient to fund the programs you want to fund. The vast - and I mean vast - majority of the US tax revenue comes from upper-middle class workers (doctors, lawyers, engineers).
  Again I’m with you in wanting to make infra improvements and curb the influence of the ultra rich. But you’re not creating a compelling story for rural/suburbanites, nor is your nuanced math sound. >
  
  
  The biggest education funding initiative being talked at the federal level is student debt relief. The older folks whom paid their student debts and blue college don’t need that.
  
  FYI you are incorrectly using “whom” in place of “who.”
  If you don't believe me paste that paragraph into Grammarly (you can use it for free).
  I don't often correct people’s grammar but since using the word “whom” at all is somewhat pedantic (and believe me, I’m all for that), to misuse it is a pet peeve of mine. >
  
  
  these dramatic phrases are pushing away a pretty overwhelming majority of people
  It's not just activists and extreme leftists. It's common among everyday liberals. I'm liberal and live in a liberal city, and I hear these phrases all the time.
  
  So these phrases are pushing people away, yet you are also now hearing everyday liberals say them all the time? 
  The fact that everyday libs are more and more onboard with these things seems kind of like evidence that they're working, doesn't it? That rather than pushing people away, it's actually attracting them?
  Also, what reforms specifically do you think we're missing out on due to people being turned off by these slogans? Like, what was happening before they became more common that was halted by them?
  For example, Ferguson happened in 2014, well before "defund the police", when "sensible" people like Obama and Hillary were in charge. What exactly were they doing to resolve that that was so much better than what has been achieved since defund the police?
  And as far as Eat the Rich, what exactly did sensible Obama, who was basically elected to break up the banks following 2008, do? Nothing. Dodd-Frank literally entrenched the banks and established a pipeline for them to borrow on the public credit without the need for any votes or political noise or awareness via the Fed "discount window".
  I don't see any evidence that these phrases are "stunting progress", because I don't see any evidence that there was much happening prior to them at all. They came about in response to years and years of centrist inaction and appeasement in the face of conservative aggression.
  
  What are we actually trying to achieve with these phrases?
  
  "Defund the police" -- Draining large amounts of funds from militarized police departments to reduce their ability to operate, stripping them of most of the jobs they currently do, and reallocating those funds/reassigning those jobs to care-based organizations focused on helping people rather than punishing them
  "Eat the Rich" -- Increase taxes on rich people and businesses and use those funds to help the rest of society in a variety of ways.
  It's pretty clear.
  But if you do decide to respond to me here, there is something I'd like you to include: what do you actually want in regards to these areas? Like, do you want to significantly change the way policing works and/or significantly decrease the amount of money society allows rich people to keep?
  Because if you disagree with these goals, you're probably not going to like any slogans for them. And if so you should probably acknowledge that your disagreement is on the goal itself, not the tactic. And it's probably more productive to discuss goals, rather than talk at cross purposes. >
  
  Well then, it's a good thing that nobody has ever suggested that firebombing Malibu would help anyone. >
  
  But eating the rich would be impossible, that’s so many people. Plus, the majority of people aren’t cannibals. Take comfort in my wisdom. >
  
  What if you were a cannibal and literally wanted to eat the rich? >
  
  Yes repeating the slogans doesn't actually start progress, people being on board and actually doing the slogans would account for progress. they are a call for action and if you have enough momentum and people behind you to make the threats real you see changes in policy. all forms of social progress was demanded by the masses not delivered on a silver platter. >
  
  The problem with Defund the Police isn't that it's so bombastic, it's that it doesn't even reflect the ideology well. Nobody sane wants to cut all funding from the police, it's about diverting some of the police funding to other services that are better suited to the job.
  It would be like using the slogan "Eat the babies" to represent the ideology "Have less babies so there is less food consumption and we can eat the food the babies would have eaten." >
  
  Most people don’t care about politics. 30% of people actually vote. That’s stunting progress >
  
  Nuance scales poorly. 
  If you need to explain in scientific terms what splitting an atom does, your audience would lose interest. If you make a simple "Goes Boom" then a lot of people get the idea quickly and those who are more interested woud be more likely to invest time in studying he topic.
  The point of a slogan is to quickly dissimenate the idea to the maximum number of people. It doesn't mean that the slogan is realistic or attainable, slogans are advertisements. >
  
  when the rich have already eaten everything and are ringing the last bit out of the people the only fair way is to eat the rich. the only thing people get wrong is who are the rich? the rich are not your neighbor whos the doctor with a boat it is the guy with 4 houses and buys a yacht because hes bored. >
  
  Pretending not to understand hyperbole is not the same as being or desiring nuance.
  Pretendind not to understand something is universally a sign of arguing in bad faith, in fact.
  The country is being driven apart because we fundamentally disagree about the issue. A conservative could spend 4 hours telling me all about the nuances of "Lock Her Up" (what, you don't have an issue with that one?), but at the end of the day I will still think he's just wrong. The lack of nuance is not the issue. >
  
  Depends on your definition of progress because your objection to both those statements imply you like the political status quo as is ,or benefit from slow change and therefore are willing to compromise at the expense of people who suffer constantly in their life from both ends of police brutality and capitalist exploitation.
  Fact is people tried incremental change and compromises with Slave holding class , and that didn’t work out to well til drastic measures eventually came about. 
  Same with militarized police and capitalists who exploit the poor and have repeatedly undercut the economy. Who in turn work glove in hand. Compromise has been tried and incremental change only benefits the oppressor. How many recessions, ,corporate price gougings, mass layoffs and limitations to workers rights which create poverty and reactionary protests  and suppression by said military police are people supposed to endure til this “change” occurs? Why is it the oppressed who must continue with their misery while this slow gradual change occurs, while the rich prosper and get richer at their expense in the meantime? 
  Better question is..what middle ground is there between the oppressed and the oppressor? >
  
  "Defund the police" isn't extreme. Police budgets many places are incredibly bloated, often due to unfair practices, and most of that bloat is put either into salaries or military grade weapons. "Defund the police" is a direct call for a reasonable solution to a real problem, especially since the follow up with such groups is always to put the money into other social services and emergency responders that would further help reduce crime (certainly more than tear gas and hummers do) >
  
  Yeah the police are currently expected to do the jobs of 10 people. Even if you are extremely pro-police you should also want the police defunded, broken up into more manageable jobs and handled more efficiently. It is beyond unreasonable to expect LEO to have memorized all laws, be experts in mental health, know all signs of abuse, know at least basic forensics science, be skilled in deescalation and hostage negation, and so on. >
  
  I think the police having the budget of some militaries and the rich not paying their fair share is doing more damage to progress than a saying is.
  Then again why invest in education, healthcare and social support when you can full equip the police force with weapons and armour so they can feel safe whilst abusing power. >
  
  It seems like you're under the impression that the reason the right wing opposes economic reform and police accountability is because they haven't seen the right slogan for those movements.  What makes you think that people who do not currently support those movements are simply waiting for the right catchphrase? >
  
  
  The way to persuade people is to meet them where they are, to find common ground and help them understand why their current view needs changing.
  
  Okay. How has that been working? 
  I get why you think that these slogans shouldn't be working. But they are. More progress is being made than ever before. No thanks to the hand-wringing, pearl clutching "moderates" crying about "nuance." 
  Moderates have been demanding nuance since the days of MLK and long before. Can't remember a time they ever got anything done though. You want to change someone's mind by meeting them where they are, go right ahead, no one is stopping you. >
  
  
  They feel like the kind of language that's actually halting progress and dividing the country further.
  
  This is a feature, not a bug. Who benefits when the country is divided? Fringe extreme groups. Just look at the extreme fringe of both parties, it's not just a left or right issue, though the left makes worse slogans. Get enough people to vote third party, and soon you don't need to appeal to a majority of Americans. >
  
  Is that enlightened centrism I detect? 
  
  Get enough ppl to vote 3rd prty and soon y don’t need to appeal to a majority of Americans 
  
  Im not following? >
  
  I guess my theory is that both major parties are trending further away from the center. Centrists won't feel at home in either and leave in greater numbers for third party options. Once this reaches a critical mass, candidates can win a given position with fewer and fewer votes. >
  
  Centrist candidates are the draw for centrists, not third parties. Third parties are there for the outer flanks of the two main parties. Centrist will never form a real third party when they can just pendulum between the two >
  
  You could be correct. That said, support for third parties is growing. The libertarian party is an example of a party that appeals to both left and right leaning individuals, and it's membership has grown dramatically in recent memory. >
  
  The centrists you're talking about also don't want to tax the rich, so I really don't see who is put off by it besides people that would also be put off with "more nuance".
  Also keep in mind that the US political landscape is very shifted to the right. To an European, both republicans and democrats are on the right for example. You're not gonna reach more people by advocating for higher taxes, you're gonna reach the same amount of people by saying eat the rich. >
  
  
  Democrats are far left according to European standards.
  
  What left wing policies do the Democrats support that aren't already present in European centrist policy? (keep in mind I'm referring to the democratic party, not just Bernie and "the squad") >
  
  
  Lesbianism, bisexuality, sodomy, transvestism
  
  You could maybe argue that the Democratic party supports the state not having the power to regulate people's private sexual lives and identities as long as everyone is a consenting adult, but I dont know how that's an inherently left wing position especially when the Republicans claim to be the party of "small government".
  Are you saying you want the government to decide what consenting adults you can have sex with and how you have sex with them?
  
  crime abolitionism, 
  
  Is getting rid of crime a left wing position?  I mean I agree that Democrats want to do something about crime, generally but I actually think they are too eager to go all in on police and drug laws.  Biden, for example, wholeheartedly supported massively increased police funding and signed a bill into law that provided funding for police pretty early in his term.
  
  abolition of the nuclear family, support of pedophilia
  
  None of this is true, and you don't have any credible evidence to support it. >
  
  
  What are we actually trying to achieve with these phrases? 
  
  With "Defund The Police", for example, I imagine they are trying to achieve defunding the police.
  
  And is it working?
  
  Fox News claims police have been defunded in a lot of major cities, which (if true) would mean that yes it is working. >
  
  
  These brazen phrases are not just inducing resentment in conservatives, they're infuriating most practical people who crave nuance in rhetoric, centrists who can't get on board with extremity, and the overwhelming majority of people who vote for their own self-interests.
  
  Do you have any backing for this idea?
  You don't explain your view. How are these phrases stunting progress or "doing more harm than good?"
  You just say they infuriate people, which seems to be a personal view. Even if they did, how does that stunt progress or do harm? >
  
  Following initial Black Lives protests, their was almost universal support for some decent police change and reform. However, after more violent action and ACAB a lot of moderate Americans turned away from police reform due to its association with more radical sentiment. Change can happen, but harsh slogans divide the people and make improvements more difficult. If we want to fix our institutions we have to rally people instead of using harsh rhetoric that makes us feel good >
  
  BLM actually did manage successful local changes and both the Dems and GOP wrote police reform bills nationally.
  It wasn't the slogan that's older than the movement that caused people to turn away, it was the rise in crime. >
  
  Somewhat true, but having some violent riots in combination with a more violent slogan definitely turned some people off from police reform >
  
  I'll call it crime because it was crime that didn't even share a political movement. BLM protestors since day 1 begged the anarchists to stop, and the crimes were done by both left- and right-wing crooks and provocateurs.
  But the crime helped police turn people away from police reform. >
  
  True, but I just think that was one factor. Violence in combination with bad rhetoric ties police reform to violent actions like crime. It makes it more difficult for blm to distance themselves from crime even though blm is a pretty peaceful organization overall >
  
  Is "defund" violent? is "abolish?"
  Eat the rich I agree, but that was more an occupy slogan and not the current generation stuff which is more justice/rights/my body type sayings. >
  
  Yeah, I mean similar charges have been levied against a lot of sayings and writing that inarguably did create change. I’m sure you’ve heard of A Modest Proposal? Would you feel more secure about a slogan where the oppressed said “naw, it’s okay, we’ll just eat our own children”? >
  
  Well you said it yourself - shock value gets attention and you make progress on the pendulum's backslide.  The people actually parroting these sayings are wrong, but without those people we get complacent and stagnate. >
  
  Why are they wrong? >
  
  There's a lot of nuances to a fully formed argument on the topics but to be equally as surface level, getting rid of rich people won't make poor people not poor and police need money to catch bad guys >
  
  it’s not that the police don’t have enough money, they don’t have enough people. like cps and other organizations that were supposed to make life safer. they’re so overwhelmed with work that they half ass everything just to stay caught up. the majority of police activity is in the domestic violence realm, no absurd amount of money is needed for deescalation lmao- they just suck at it. the only time they need a lot of money is for forensics. that’s where i work! and even still it’s not as much as it used to be, that fancy new technology is now commonplace. it depends on who you’re sourcing, and unless it’s some highly regarded specialist, it can be covered by the county. that being said i work in a city that’s very well known for forensic science, so we never have money issues. >
  
  Allocation of funds could certainly be a problem but if you're short on bodies the solution to that certainly isn't defunding.  People cost money. >
  
  yeah that’s the nuance this post is missing. “defund the police” doesn’t literally mean stop giving them money and move on, it’s a slogan that’s pushing for total reform. the system is fucked up for everyone, including the police. i thought this was common knowledge but apparently many people have no idea what they’re talking about lmao >
  
  If you arrive at the place where you're saying "this topic is important bu the rhetoric bothers me" hasn't it worked?  You're aware of and talking about a thing you wouldn't have otherwise. >
  
  
  they’re infuriating most practical people who crave nuance in rhetoric, centrists who can’t get on board with extremity, and the overwhelming majority of people who vote for their own self-interests.
  
  If you cared about the opinions or lives of anyone else you might understand more, fyi. 
  There is nuance underlying the phrases that you disagree with. Just because people aren’t providing you with an essay explaining their position, it doesn’t mean they’re just mindless phrases that exist purely for shock value.
  The system as it exists is practical for you and people like you. Are you really so self-centered that you can’t see that people whose health, safety, and wellbeing are constantly at risk do not find the system to be “practical”?
  There is a silver lining to the upward creeping decay: more wealthy right-wing liberals are being absorbed into the same humiliating, militarized grind that millions upon millions of people have lived through. Maybe if you join you’ll understand why Aaron Sorkin speeches about cross-aisle cooperation aren’t the only way to express your opinion! >
  
  Eat the rich has been a slogan since the French Revolution, and there's been massive political progress since then. Where would we be if Rousseau had never said it? Utopia? >
  
  but how many rich actually got eaten >
  
  Completely agree. “Defund” is what makes me think it was for personal attention and shock-value Likes/retweets, more than actually trying to move the needle and help people >
  
  Yes, definitely confusing to most and why it’s not a good slogan. Even for its shock value. >
  
  I think you have a problem with catchphrases and the people who curry interest in a movement through them. >
  
  Defund the police and Eat the rich are two very different messages.
  Eat the rich is a slogan coming from an actual standpoint of harming those people.  Almost everyone that says that includes things like a guillotine or other means of harming those people.  On that, I would agree it sets back your movement.
  However, Defund the police carries a much different message.  It is about removing funding from an organization whose entire existence really isn't benefitting society.  Most police organizations are enforcing unjust and unethical laws, most of which aren't made for the safety of anyone.  Defunding an organization of corrupt individuals who operate outside the law on a regular basis.  Note that it is not Abolish the police.  Because there needs to be someone to maintain order.  But that can be done by other organizations, like is being done in Detroit where the police time is measured in days.  Private security has become a thing where there is no reliable police.  So why have that police department at all?  Defund it, return the wasted millions to the citizens and let them create their own.
  One of the slogans has legitimate value to discourse.  The other is a "hang the referee" chant.  The two are just not comparable. >
  
  This stuff annoys me. Because it tells me you were never listening. Because this all started with nuanced takes. Both of these issues have existed before either of those catch phrases did. People tried those nuanced approaches you ask for first. You know what happened? No one listened or cared. And now you cry that thy are too loud? What a privileged take. 
  Don’t criticize how others demand change when you never lifted a finger to help them. >
  
  This is the most shallow, generalized, word-jumble of baseless assumption of any comment here thus far. You don’t know me, but your comment is actually a pretty solid microcosm of the problem—attacking someone into seeing your side, condescending to a person you disagree with and have decided is your enemy, dramatic knee-jerk rhetoric, and thinking you’ll actually catch a single bee with vinegar >
  
  Oh you mean like you did. You dont listen to what they say at all. Just like you didn’t actually read what I said. People never listen until you make them. 
  People ignore them, so they get loud, and then they say they agree but they wish they weren’t as loud. Of course they get pissed and lash out. If you actually cared about the issue though you would reach out before they had to get loud. Stop wanting solutions to be convenient.
  You proved my point. You read through everything I said, and focused on the one sort of insult at the end? Why? Because you don’t actually care about fixing these issues. >
  
  It seems to be a pretty common strategy in politics to take the extreme example on your opponent's side and claim every member of the other side is also this extreme. It's not the extremists' fault that this happens. If anything, it pushes a party closer to the center, which actually does help it appeal to a broader cohort.
  And I'm not sure how many people believe "Eat the rich" is supposed to be an actual policy position that a reader would be turned off to. >
  
  "Defund the police" was pretty mainstream. About a third of democrats supported it. >
  
  Eat the Rich isn't even taken seriously. I've seen this said by countless stans of multi-millionaire popstars. >
  
  I want to focus on defund the police, but I actually want to change your view in the other direction.  It's an even worse slogan than you're making it out to be.  It's not just bad because it's overly dramatic rhetoric, it's bad because if people listen to it it's going to make the problem worse.  A lot of the issues with police malfeasance need to be solved with more finding, not less.  Specifically better salaries and better training, both of which are expensive. >
  
  I say "Eat the rich" because I quite literally mean it. We should serve them on fine china and devour them in their entirety while we redistribute the wealth they've been hoarding. I'm not saying it to be shocking, I genuinely think this should be happening. >
  
  Centrists and moderates are part of the enabling of the problem, see MLK jr. quote on moderates, I have no time for their dispassionate and selfish world view. As pointed out by others here, the fact that this discussion exists at all is proof positive that the slogans are doing exactly what their aim is. >
  
  All cops are bad.  
  Until good cops deal with bad cops, all cops are bad 
  Therefore , defunding the current model is our only choice. 
  Progress is at 0, it can’t be stunted any further 
  Let’s do it …now >
  
  
  Until good cops deal with bad cops, all cops are bad 
  
  but that's a self-defeating paradox as if they're all bad there's no good cops to stop the bad cops and make them not bad. Also with the way some people think that'd need to happen, you'd need all good cops to deal with all bad cops everywhere (jurisdiction be damned) at the same time otherwise if one good cop deals with one bad cop that still makes everyone else bad because they didn't deal with that particular bad cop because one guy got there first >
  
  One way out! >
  
  Globalization and the nature of the interconnected world have made reform an international mater with every nation's nose in every other nation's business in both a metaphorical and literal sense with trade ties. Phrases like "eat the rich" & "defund the police" are in line with revolutionary methods that are relegated to the past or nations that hold no standing on the worlds stage of super powers. The America of today is one that is so corrupted and with so many knots of power grabs tied into power grabs the know is so big I can see why people would like to try to throw it in the trash and start fresh, that being said the nuance of being subjects to a monarchy and the lived experience that went into the creation of our founding documents is no where to be found in our current world, a document drafted in the present by the most brilliant of our current minds would lack the safeties and nuances that our nation was not only founded off of but also built upon. I do not know how to fix things but what people are proposing are certainly just giving more powers to a knot that is already strong enough. I honestly think that doing away with career politicians would be fantastic, but I am by no means knowing enough of just how deep the corruption goes to just how many people we would have to swap or the repercussions of such a change.
  Today's political conversations consists of people fighting over carrots that ruling class have decided for us to debate over in a ploy to make us believe that resolving how to divvy the carrot is meaningful agency in our political system.
  I don't know enough to know the answer, but it seems like it's not just me that sees that there is a big problem. >
  
  I would agree, but "Black lives matter" is considered just as "divisively leftist" as the things you listed. >
  
  "Provide support for lower income families via guaranteed income funded by increased tax on those making over $300,000 a year while taxing capital gains as regular income!" And "redistribute funding currently allocated to the militarization of the police into better social and mental health supports to both decrease the risk of police violence in mental health crises and provide better outcomes for the citizens suffering from these episodes while reducing our overburdened prison population and increasing quality of life for those at the fringes of society!" Do not make great chants at protests. >
  
  People who use these phrases don't actually expect anyone to take them seriously. I mean, not just in the obvious literal meaning of that they're saying, but to whatever larger point they think they're making. They're dumb phrases used by dumb people. >
  
  Because historically speaking - eating the rich caused the western world to prosper as they escapes the death grip of tyrants that came before slowing real progress with their unbending egos. They progressed way faster than the east which failed to undermine its dynasties
  in fact. >
  
  Rich people depend on people being poor to stay wealthy. They don’t want to see eye to eye with us because their goals are about luxury and power while most normal people’s are basic comforts and survival. The rich can meet all their needs so there is no “need” of theirs to reason with that doesn’t still harm everyone else. So yes, eat the rich. You don’t have to become egregiously rich because you make a lot of money - some people don’t, they GIVE IT AWAY. Dolly Parton and Oprah could’ve both been billionaires but because they see eye to eye on basic human issues, they don’t hoard their wealth - we won’t eat them! 
  Also I didn’t mean to award your post, I disagree with it, but enjoy the internet silver haha. >
  
  Liberals are the problem and this is the perfect example. I believe in defunding the police. I don’t give a shit about shock value. It’s an actual belief. I don’t know what liberals believe in except for performative progressivism. I liberal is interested in the rights of X group until X group gets anywhere near where the liberals live. A liberal is interested in equality for X group until X group gets into the first choice school their kid was rejected from. 
  Liberals suck because they appropriate the language of the left while advocating for the policies of the right. >
  
  
  These brazen phrases are not just inducing resentment in conservatives
  
  Conservatives will find any attack surface, however mild.  Liberal media too.  Stop The Steal, Lock Her Up, Build The Wall, there's vitriol stoked on both sides.  Twitter is basically designed to get us incensed 24 hours a day.  You can have a lukewarm slogan that is historically precedented like Tax The Rich and Tucker Carlson would still find 90 minutes worth of programming to lambast it and act like it's the end of the free world.
  
  They're infuriating most practical people who crave nuance in rhetoric
  
  Those same people (Myself included) also have the wherewithal to know that three words doesn't capture the richness of humanity or the universe.  Defund The Police, for example, obviously wasn't about abolishing the police by anybody who understands the issue or proposed solutions.  But "Shift Policing Resources To Community Mental Health Workers!" doesn't work.  The point of these slogans IS to be extreme and start conversations, even if the nuance has to be added in each time.  The milder, practical slogans never catch on.  "Make America Think Harder" is great, but it fell totally flat.  
  It's the same reason public health messaging is essentially lies, because people are too dumb and non-nuanced to take on the entirety of an issue.  Mask up, get vaccinated, it will save your life.  Simple and close enough to the truth.
  
  centrists who can't get on board with extremity, 
  
  Centrists are often pragmatists.  I know him, he's me.  Pragmatists understand that most people need to overcome massive static friction to give a shit about politics. That takes bold, pithy statements and ideas.  It sucks, but that's how our feeble minds work.  We're largely emotional decision-makers who rationalize post-hoc, thinking it was the logical end.
  
  and the overwhelming majority of people who vote for their own self-interests.
  
  Well, on the conservative side, sure.  Most progressives are voting for... progress, more of a safety net and rights for others.  But most slogans are an attempt to activate and garner interest from independents and moderates who are needed to reach a critical mass for change, on either side.  And that's the whole point.  We're extremely divided and if you're counting on a three word chant to suddenly turn Vader back into Anakin, you'll find it is you who is mistaken, young Skywalker. >
  
  Shock slogans can be effective.   A shock slogan is meant to provoke you to do further research.  Hyperbole is meant to hammer a point home, but what happens when hyperbole is re-presented as the baseline?
  Unfortunately, people rarely do that research and don't stray past their bubbles.  And we don't live in a media landscape where ideas and facts are further discussed and explored.  We live in a world where cultural commentators and click bait media will twist meanings to fit their own cynical agendas and profit motives with quick sound bites.
  A rational person, if they understood the issue, knows that there's a difference between "stopping the militarisation of the police force" doesn't mean "no more cops!".   No one in their right mind (left, centre or right) wants to strip all resources form the police force.   They may agree that the police need military grade weapons, or they may not.  But that's not the discussion that takes place when there's commentary on "Defund the Police".
  "Eat the Rich" (in its 20th and 21st century reappropriation) just means those individuals and corporations in the super high tax brackets should pay their fair share of tax without exploiting loopholes and using lobbyists.  Again, you may or may not agree with that.  But that's hardly a call for a literal "Marxist Revolution".
  I don't blame people for taking media at face value.  Not everyone is invested in spending hours online researching and debating.  News should be news and should present two sides with enough unbiased information to make up your own mind.  But while it still reports on events, out of the financial need to survive, it's padded with worthless one-sided opinion pieces and content for ad revenue.  This isn't just a rant about "old media" either, so called "new media" has become even worse.  So, you can't point the blame at "boomers" for only watching mainstream media pundits and commentators, when you're getting the same garbage from YouTube.
  To bring it back - are phrases the issue or is the medium they're delivered in?  And if the medium is the issue, then how do you cut through that and move on to phase-two of the discussion? >
  
  Yes, I had to explain to my dad “Defund the police” means taking their massive military grade budget, and like 30% of taxpayers contribution, and allocating it to other things that prevent the use of police intervention down the road. Funding for schooling/after school programs, free drug rehabilitation, affordable mental health consultation/appointments, free school lunches, jobs for roadside cleanup (not using convicts for slave labor)… 
  There’s a lot more that needs that funding WAY more than a scared grownass man in riot gear hiding in a hallway while 8 years olds scream for help while he picks his ass. >
  
  I've said over and over that "defund the police" is such an absurdly bad slogan it had to come from the opposition. >
  
  I'm 40, and everything in politics and economics has gotten worse my whole life.  There's been progress in civil rights issues and a backslide in everything else.
  I don't have kids.  I don't care what happens after I die. I am the end of a reproductive line going back thousands of years and I am cutting it short because it seems the only moral action. I care about my life as it is, within the limits of my lifetime. 
  I don't know how we change things within my lifetime without actions that you suggest are limited to the extreme left. And so I despair.  I despair that we will never see sufficiently desperate acts in my lifetime, and I despair that we will. >
  
  I legitimately think the rich should be harvested for resources so anything except eat the rich doesn't really get the point across. >
  
  Defiund the police is a chant by radicals who only criticize govt they never govern. Fascists know to use crime to usurp liberty and increase authority of police. We need police who are highly skilled and trained not without finances to achieve highest standards >
  
  
  They feel driven by shock value in order to garner personal attention. They feel self-serving and shortsighted. They feel like the kind of language that's actually halting progress and dividing the country further.
  
  You're totally correct, and probably understated the problem. Thanks for raising the issue; I wish you luck persuading anyone on Reddit. >
  
  They’re probably catch phrases created by the govt or CIA to sow chaos v >
  
  Although I don’t think the police should be totally defunded, there does need to be policy changes. Like taking away qualified immunity. You take away that protection and I bet shootings and mistaken identities on the innocent goes away. It’s time to start taking from their pensions and their yearly funding instead of their fuck ups being put on us, the tax payers. 
  You start holding true accountability and putting the punishment on their pockets and real change will happen. Because pretending that their isn’t corruption in the police force is willful ignorance at best. 
  The only way real change happens is when you hit the pockets. >
  
  Change my view: the rich and police are stunting progress >
  
  I sometimes wonder if they are actually created by the right. I mean do we really have that many tone-deaf people creating catchphrases? People are saying you can't have nuance in small phrases, but take Black Lives Matter and turn it into Black Lives Matter Too and you get a whole bunch of nuance. Take Defund the Police. How About something like Fund Compassionate Solutions for increasing social services, demilitarizing the police, and maybe requiring more than six months of training before we put someone in charge of law and order? I spent about 20 seconds thinking of these so I'm betting their are even better solutions out there. You can get nuance in catchphrases, but it's almost like people want them to be polarizing. >
  
  I see it more as a slogan for campaign purposes. But I do agree that it’s not informative enough because people will always interpret it differently.
  I don’t think it’s necessarily those phrases itself as the problem, but the people trying to explain their message. Whether you’re left, neutral, or right wing; people don’t do their full research. shrugs