“Misunderstood”?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...

Some opinion article from a social justice warrior doesn't indicate that the vast majority of people who say "defend the police" are not saying "abolish the police." That kind of black and white thinking undermines the conversation.

What really undermines the conversation is twisting the meaning of words, saying what you (supposedly) don’t really mean, and then blaming people for interpreting them correctly.

Here are more examples:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-beca...

https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2021/02/12/We-Actually-Mean-Aboli...

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2020/08/the-abolition-mov...

Again, if you're actively searching for abolitionists, you can find them, but the vast majority of the use of the term, from a count of the first 20 articles on any search engine of "What does defund the police mean," means reduce funding.

And, indeed, your first article actually uses the term exactly as we're using it.

While the author is arguing for abolition, and the first and only time she uses the word "defund" it is to say

> Defunding the police is one step on a broad stairway toward abolition. Cities can reduce the size and scope of police...

Likewise using that pejorative.

Serious question: how do you interpret "Starve the beast"?[1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

The author does not speak for the Black Lives Matter movement, nor for the vast majority of people who use that phrase. The use of "we" in the title is egoising.

A quick search of "what does 'Defund the Police' mean" will find that the vast majority of proponents, and of articles written about them in almost all newspapers and magazines, interpret it as reducing the budget of the police and redirecting that budget into non-violent community aid.

So motte-and-bailey.

Here are more examples:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-beca...

https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2021/02/12/We-Actually-Mean-Aboli...

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2020/08/the-abolition-mov...

Even Obama didn't like it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/02/barack-obama...

Above article refers to this long interview: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/obama-urges-activist...

And I agree with him, if you have to add ", and by this phrase I mean a b c d e f" or "please search the Internet and click a good URL (not Breitbart, but also not Mariame Kaba) to see what we mean by this phrase", do you think people wouldn't just think you're an extremist after the snappy phrase and stop listening?

The self-sabotage (and then people like you defending the phrase) is so mind-boggingly dumb. Do you want change, or do you want to alienate people?

But eh, on the topic of alienating people, I've seen enough "online activists" snap at supporting voices that I thought "I wouldn't be surprised if that supporter stopped sympathizing with them.". Then you have supporters turn to quiet "Fuck it, I'll just shut my mouth" or worse, be opponents.