comment: >
  
  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.
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!