There is a fairly good point here that when people argue that politician X is defunding the military or defunding schools, nobody assumes that they mean that they've ended public education or disbarred the military.

We have a general social understanding of the word "defund" that also encapsulates "moving money/responsibilities from one department to another one." So it feels a little bit like a double standard to in this case assume that it necessarily means complete abolition.

Because people that work in the industry want to exaggerate the issue to try to get more funding and support.

Oh sure, I get that. Any effort to change policing in America is always going to be treated like it's extreme, period. I've seen press reports arguing that merely holding police funding steady and not increasing budgets is "defunding" them.

But I think thesuitonym is still right to point out that this is inconsistent with how these words are regularly used in other contexts. There are people directly under their post arguing that no, defund literally means removing all money, the dictionary says so -- and that's just a really silly argument if we look at how the word is used most commonly in politics.

When people across multiple political parties are arguing about defunding everything from schools, to the IRS, to NASA, to the military, to the Post Office, it's just not honest for people to argue that in this specific case we should should look at the first result in Webster and ignore everything else.

An additional and worthwhile addition: Black Lives Matter.

The movement was never ONLY Black Lives Matter, or Cops Lives Don't Matter, or any of the other ways various opponents have decided to interpret the name to justify ignoring the societal criticisms of the protests.

Truth is, words are tough, and the more complex and nuanced a topic gets to be, the more a pity simple phrase or title become impossible to be accurate. Additionally, being provocative has its uses, especially in the early awareness stages of a movement.

It wasn't ever about words, it was about how the media behind the movement wanted to spin it. Even the most conservative American agrees that abuses like civil asset forfeiture need to stop. It was anger being spun into an empty promise, yet again, from a party whose entire history is misery and subjugation.

It was never about black lives either. If it was then they would care about the black on black violence in Chicago, for example. BLM is a marxist, anti American, anti nuclear family organization. It was all clearly and openly stated on their website.

In both cases what you mean is not the default reading. Defund means to remove funds, and you meaning something else is not 'exactly that'.

Anti means you are against something, so the natural reading is that you don't want that thing (work) to be a thing anymore, not the more convoluted meaning you say is 'exactly that' even though nobody unfamiliar can possibly guess at it from just the word anti.

If your "default" reading of any sociopolitical proposal is to assume it is an absolutist desire and not one more nuanced or practical under the hood, you have a wrong default.

"Defund the police" meaning "zero funds for the police" or "no police exist". "Anti-work" meaning "against all work" or "work" meaning "general expenditure of productive effort" or something.

You can look a little bit more into any slogan or label and see more of what it entails. Hell, some people might want to abolish police entirely or have everyone laze around in utopian bliss while not starving. Feel free to disagree with the former and see if the latter have any plan to not starve or if it's nonsense. I've generally taken each to mean "we should allocate public security and safety money differently" and "our current construct of the job as the sole driver of societal worth is bad".

So "default" to something more reasoned and nuanced and see if they are absolutist rather than the reverse. Pithy and descriptive tend to not go hand in hand so this applies often.

> If your "default" reading of any sociopolitical proposal is to assume it is an absolutist desire and not one more nuanced or practical under the hood, you have a wrong default.

Why would anyone "assume nuance" from explicit language? There's no ambiguity about what it says at face value.

Even proponents can't keep it straight in this case. An above user suggests it means "People should not have to work to live. ", whereas the anti-work sub's faq describes its mission as being "against work under Capitalism". To the extent that one labors under Socialism, they labor to live, if History is any indication. Notwithstanding, "living" can practically mean more than just subsistence since, obviously, no one supporting anti-work is starving. They're thinking about comfort and quality of life, not merely survival, and this is deliberately conflated. They can all quit their jobs and survive. Moreover, basic income, once it is implemented, would allow citizens to be consumers and purchase more comforts without working even in a Liberal democratic Capitalist society - that isn't contingent on Socialism at all.

If your buzzword means whatever it is you want it to mean, and others persistently don't interpret it the same way, then it's a failure. It only succeeds at increasing friction.

The question is does defund mean "remove all funds" or "remove some funds"

defund: verb. prevent (a group or organization) from continuing to receive funds

They shouldn't get funds from taxpayers to pay large settlements when they abuse their power.

defund verb

: to withdraw funding from

Yes. Not reduce. Withdraw.

You only withdraw your entire checking account at ATMs?

If I withdraw £10, I get all of that £10s. Just as if troops withdraw, they don't leave some people. Or if my wife and I decide to withdraw from a conversation, one of us doesn't stay.

And yes, if I decide to withdraw all of my checking account from an ATM, I get... all of it.

"Withdraw" doesn't imply partial things. What you choose to withdraw, you withdraw.

"Downfund" was unfortunately not a word.

I disagree. I think the language was chosen to be inflammatory and overstated. The reason I think that is because everybody I know, from Republicans to moderate progressives to socialists, assumed it was much more radical on first hearing. Moderate progressives in particular were a bit alarmed by it, and then on hearing what it actually meant, were immediately on board because it's a bundle of familiar ideas that they already supported.

To put it another way, if the intention was to create a succinct label that gave people a generally accurate impression before they heard the details, it was a complete failure.

Conservatives in particular love it because if they want to misrepresent it as something radical and alarming, they just have to repeat the same name that its proponents use. (Not that that is necessarily going to work for them -- I think it comes off as a bit too obvious and lazy, especially since proponents have stuck with the label and coalesced support around it.)

I don't necessarily think it's a bad name, because it has attracted a lot of attention, and the idea has gained momentum, but it's just too obvious to deny that "defund the police" was designed to be misunderstood. For good tactical reasons, maybe, but obviously intended to mislead.

>When I say I'm anti-work, I mean exactly that: People should not have to work to live. What you hear is: "Nobody should ever do any work." That's not what anyone is saying. We're saying that people should be free to do work that is fulfilling and necessary, not busy-work created to keep the 40 hour work-week.

Sorry but this has to be the dumbest most elitist sheltered things I've heard.

You ARE free to do what you want. What you are not free to do is demand that others support you in this endeavor.

Is your idea that policeman, firefighters, emt, doctors, teachers, farmers and the the plethora of other jobs necessary to sustain modern life should work while you are allowed go off and spend your day in hot yoga classes while they support you????

My idea is that I should be able to be a teacher, because that is what I want to do. I cannot be a teacher, because where I live, teachers do not get paid enough to live unless they have a spouse who is bringing in very good money.

If I didn't have to work to live, I could pursue that dream.

Sounds like you need to move to a lower col area, figure out your finances, or change your standards then. My wife is a teacher and I make pretty close to what she does. We own a house, we don't have any loans, we make a perfectly adequate living that allows us to do almost everything we want to do. Teachers are not living in squalor. They get very good retirements and plentiful time off for family.

The solution to your problem is not force a certain section of the population to work and give their salary to you so you get to "pursue your dream". Why do you get to do what you want while others are forced to keep your power on and your sewer system working daily?

Decisions have consequences, if you want something then you will need to sacrifice in certain areas.