- Police staffing levels are at critical levels [2]
- Violent crime has shot way up in 2021 (along with the rest of the country) [3]
- Things got so bad so quickly that in just a year millions of dollars were added back to the budget [4]
- Things have continued to get worse relative to the rest of the country (which has seen crime drop back down) [5]
When someone believes that there's semen in a beer, or they go to church, or they reply 'thank you for your service' to someone on the internet, that doesn't have real consequences for people. It might get spoken about in the media sometimes, but it's more just a side-show.
When a stupid slogan ruined the best chance America had for wide police reform in decades, that does have consequences. Even more now, nobody (who should be a cop) in Portland wants to be a cop. Lower class communities that need more patrols don't have them. People don't feel safe in their houses. Who do you think took the brunt of this: those who chanted the slogan, or those in the huge minority ethnic groups in East Portland?
And the most critical part about this: defund the police was treated with some amount of legitimacy by the media because it was their in group saying it. It should have been treated as the fringe belief it really was. Imagine if that airtime was used to campaign for reform. The real frustration of it all is that it was a zeitgeist that could have been an opportunity for real reform, and really making people want to be cops. Instead the moment was pissed away by a dumb slogan, rather than constructive debate.
[1] Besides at best a hand-wavy 'community policing', which conjures up memories of that one Simpsons episode.
[2] https://manhattan.institute/article/portlands-police-staffin...
[3] https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/fi...
[4] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/portland-among-u-s-citie...
[5] https://www.axios.com/local/portland/2023/10/30/oregon-crime...
Redefining words in order to win arguments. Nice. Defunding means exactly that. I know this because that is what happened to the police forces that were defunded. Not entirely defunded, but they ended up with less money in their budget.
> the typical day-to-day work for a police officer doesn't require violence or the threat of violence
Says who? Are you a cop? Do you have cops in the family? Are you a law enforcement expert? Do you have any source or statistic whatsoever to back that up?
> that. I know this because that is what happened to the police forces that
> were defunded. Not entirely defunded, but they ended up with less money
> in their budget.
The poster is not redefining the term.
The "Defund The Police" movement has very specific and very well documented goals: Use police only for law-enforcement, and use specialized responders for non-law enforcement interactions. For example, you send mental health specialists when someone is threatening suicide. This will reduce funding for the police, but it also reduces the police's workload.
Is the movement poorly named? Yes. Is their goal to eliminate police? Absolutely not.
There's a person threatening suicide in public and then pulling out a knife or gun when the authorities show up. Now what?
It's easy to be an armchair law enforcement expert and dream up scenarios where the good guys always wins. But reality doesn't conform to your utopian ideas.
Just take the L. The movement messed up.
I get that you may not want to eliminate police, but I assure you, a large number of the people at the center of these movements do want that.
In the UK for instance most officers don't even carry guns.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/trends-in-violent-crime/#....
While the rise in violent crime isn't caused by unarmed police officers the fact that they are unarmed didn't prohibit the rise in violent crime.
> The ONS reported that victimisation rates shown by the CSEW have been decreasing in the long term. They peaked in the year ending December 1995, when 4.7% of adults were a victim of violent crime. Rates have remained below 2% since the year ending March 2014.
> In contrast to the downward trend shown by the CSEW, the ONS highlighted that police recorded violent crime increased between the years ending March 2013 and March 2022. The ONS explained that these increases are thought to be driven by improvements in police recording practices
You are playing the Motte and Bailey[1] tactic perfectly. You say that defunding means only "demilitarizing", which many people would probably agree with. But when put into practise, it's never that.
I mean, you don't need to delve very far into academia or lefty twitter to find extremist people saying exactly this, that defund does actually mean abolish, or is the first step to it. And the extremists are important in this case, because they are the ones put in power, or writing the text books for next generation in power.
So either, you're a fool & a useful idiot mindlessly parroting this Motte, or you're the deviant waiting to implement the Bailey.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
Now I don't think that's realistic, and no matter how fair your society is going to be there would always be the need for some police in the end (the author themselves acknowledge that as well when talking about “less needs” for the police), but claiming that they want to abolish the police in the sense of "directly removing it in today's society" is a strawman. (Yes the provocative title is an invitation to strawmans but you fell for the trap)
No, it went viral three years ago when it came out and I remembered it.
> Because the argument made here isn't the one you think it is: it's about financing social care in order to be able to make crime disappear (making the police “obsolete”).
Yes, and? That’s exactly the argument I think it is.
> Yes the provocative title is an invitation to strawmans but you fell for the trap
A strawman is when you misrepresent a position as being absurd. When the position is already absurd, it is neither possible nor necessary to strawman it.
Then why are you responding in a thread along with someone who takes the argument as in “literally remove the police directly and let the chaos begin”? And why are you using this article as a support for their argument?
> A strawman is when you misrepresent a position as being absurd
No, a strawman is when you misrepresent someone's argument as being another absurd argument. The argument in the article isn't the one that automatic6131 is arguing against, and since you quoted the article as if it was, you're effectively making a strawman against it.
If you think the argument in the article is absurd, that's fine that you criticize it, but it's not what you're doing here.
Whatever particular hair you’re splitting doesn’t change that, and the fact that you’re focused on splitting that hair in particular only demonstrates the degree of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty required to make this extreme proposal sound like anything more than the gibbering nonsense it is.
> someone who takes the argument as in “literally remove the police directly and let the chaos begin”
I clicked the “parent” links to read every comment in this chain about defunding the police and none of the people in this discussion match the strawman you describe. My characterization of “defund/abolish the police”, in which funding for law enforcement is reallocated to social programs, is completely consistent with how automatic6131 and cmcaleer were characterizing the slogan, contra yourself and gizmo. The first reference to abolition was automatic’s here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38083132):
> I mean, you don't need to delve very far into academia or lefty twitter to find extremist people saying exactly this, that defund does actually mean abolish, or is the first step to it.
Indeed you do not. This is exactly what the NYT piece I linked to says, in so many words. And you’ve admitted as much yourself.
I'd like to emphasize the distinction between your definitions of these words and the actual definitions of these words...
abolish - formally put an end to
defund - prevent (a group or organization) from continuing to receive funds
demilitarize - remove all military forces from (an area)
Militarization of police refers to this trend where police has started to buy hardware that was previously of military use only[1], so it's not completely absurd to talk about the opposite motion as “demilitarization”.
> defund - prevent (a group or organization) from continuing to receive funds
Or just (significantly) reduce how much funds they get.
What do you mean? Where has police abolition been ever "put into practice"?
> I mean, you don't need to delve very far into academia or lefty twitter to find extremist people saying exactly this, that defund does actually mean abolish
If you're trying to find the point of view of stupidest leftist in existence to say “the left is stupid” then sure. Of course there are idiots/teenagers/trolls on Twitter that think that abolishing the police is the way, but that doesn't mean it's some shared position from everyone on the left or that the others are clueless.
Also, by doing this your message is violating HN's guideline.
That wasn't the popular message being broadcast into the public space.
> defunding (i.e. demilitarizing)
I agree with this! But this is reformation, not defunding. In fact, trying to create a police force more in line with Peelian principles will cost a lot more. "Reform the police" is very broad and has a lot of room for interpretation. "Defund the police" is a very straightforward request. Words have meanings, and defund does not mean demilitarize. I would bet a large amount of money on "Defund the police" polling worse with all political groups than "Reform the police" by a huge margin.
> the police force shouldn't behave like some kind of paramilitary unit
I agree with this too! Perhaps this could be done through some kind of reform ;)
For (c) the question is: how to get the public worked up enough about an issue that they take to the streets and demand change? Nuance and careful analysis don't motivate people like catchy slogans and impossible demands.
Young people who chant impossible slogans sometimes really change society for the better. People who think in shades of gray and dream of carefully considered incremental change tend not to be involved with political action at all.
Not sure what reforms you're referring to with the 2008 crisis. Housing is as unaffordable as ever.
I think your list reinforces my point. You can't achieve meaningful reforms instantaneously. It takes years and decades. The zeitgeist moment might be a catalyst, but focusing on it exclusively ignores all of the work on the ground.
In any case where major reforms are needed, there will always be many people on the other side who need to be convinced (or move on). This takes a long time.
Others have already noted that the author overstates the support for true police abolishment. Let’s set that aside.
The police are much more unpopular these days than before and the author offers their theory that it’s some deranged attempt to flex on others. There is a much simpler explanation, like the fact that you can watch a supercut of police killings on YouTube now.
You yourself see a pressing need for police reform. Some people have a radical analysis, some people with the right kind of info exposure see that idea repeated more often, and some people adopt it. This isn’t a mystery.
Are there white educated elites who are apt to adopt “defund the police” out of radical chic and not appreciating how they benefit from the police? Sure, probably. There are also thoughtful people who settle on more radical positions because the institutions seem resistant to reform.
I just don’t buy this idea of costly dogma in the educated elites. You support police reform. Maybe you know people who support some form of defunding the police. Are you losing friends over this?
Then there are the masses, who think "Justice" means "justice" and more or less buy the narrative. (At least, as far as I can tell.) These days, activism is how a lot of people seem to derive their meaning in life. So, "defund the police" advances the revolutionary cause, while being a pithy cause activists can rally around if they are not of the critical thinking persuasion.
The lack of thought about the after-effects is from the academic thinking. The goal is simply to tear down the oppressive system; there is no thought given to a replacement system or how that system would avoid simply being a different oppressing system. Or whether a replacement system would actually be less oppressive than the current system, which by historical standards is one of the least oppressive.
Environmentalism, anti racism are both good things taken over by a religious cult
The idea that some of these beliefs are popular specifically because you have to be rich to afford them was a new insight to me when I first heard it. Maybe I should've come up with it myself from first principles, but I didn't.
Regular participation in religious services is of the most beneficial activities a person can do for their mental health. I'm not saying this as a platitude, but as a well documented observed phenomenom [0][1]. To the point, I regularly see studies on benefits to those who regularly attend religious services and have never seen a study showing any adverse affects from it.
That is not to say religion is an unalloyed good, far from it. But human communities are built around shared values and beliefs - and religions provide community, cohesion, and existential value that is not replicable in any other way.
This kinda knee-jerk anti-religious sentiment is something I'd personally label a luxury belief that is largely damaging to the population as a whole. If you are sufficiently wealthy, you can probably fill some of the voids left by a lack of religion. But irreligiosity does not scale
[0] https://psyche.co/ideas/why-religious-belief-provides-a-real... [1] https://www.nber.org/digest/oct05/religion-good-you
It does scale, only ~13% of the population of the Czech Republic are religious (affiliated) [1], and additional ~10% are not affiliated but consider themselves as believers [2].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220121163456/https://www.czso....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Czech_Republic...
First, there's pretty obvious harmful effects of religion: on the minor end, feeling ostracized if you happen to be different than what the stated beliefs say are correct, i.e. being queer in the Christian church and ostracized or driven to suicide for it. (Or even more fundamental issues, like taking issue with men being the head of households.) On the extreme end, you have crusades, pogroms, wars that engulf nations. Obviously relatively harmful. Or even on the individual scale, ritual killings of those who defy the religious order.
I'd also posit that, again from the Christian faith, believing there's an all-powerful god who will sort out justice in the afterlife leads to negative outcomes here on Earth: believing you'll have everlasting life in heaven is of course going to limit your investment in systems here on Earth. I've had religious people cite (paraphrased) that "god will sort it all out" when I ask why they don't push to directly address more of the problems in the world. There's an abdication of responsibility I've found relatively common amongst my religious family on such issues. (Not universally, notably, but still.)
Regardless, for those who have "lost faith" on epistemological grounds, what is the alternative to irreligiosity? I don't "choose" not to believe in the Christian (or any other) god, I'm unconvinced by the evidence put forward by their evangelists. I have no philosophically sound alternative to atheism unless and until I encounter convincing evidence to the contrary.
I also worry about people "giving up" some of their philosophical beliefs just to belong to that kind of community. I've talked before [0] about how other more extreme communities (e.g. flat earth) aren't so much comprised of people who believe the premise of the group so much as people who _want to belong somewhere_.
> But irreligiosity does not scale
What's the alternative? The atheist segment of the population giving up portions of their ethical and philosophical autonomy to churches in exchange for a sense of community? Continuing to enable the hold of said autonomy over those who believe largely because they aren't exposed to other epistemologies because their community center discourages it?
I just mean irreligiosity doesn't scale as a way to provide existential value and social cohesion. This is what Henderson is getting at with Luxury Beliefs. They are beliefs that you can hold in the top, lets say, 10% of the wealth distribution. But those luxury beliefs actually damage people lower down the socio-economic ladder.
> feel like saying there's never adverse effects There's definitely adverse effects! But its opposite side of the coin of having meaningful, cohesive communities. Your own examples are perfect. Belonging to a community does a lot, but at the same time it means you have to conform to the community or lose its benefits.
Also, the examples of crusades, etc are just human nature expressed through religion. If the 20th century taught us nothing else, is that you don't need religion to have murderous ideologies. In fact, I'd take the Spanish Inquisition to the horrors of 20th century dictators any day!
> What's the alternative I mean, that's problem we're facing isn't it? Maybe there is some way to replace the social and existential value provided by religion, but I don't see it.
I would consider those beliefs pretty harmless compared to what intelligentsia believes in, even after 100 millions of people died because of their social experiment in the 20th century.
Is it that the beliefs are inherently less harmful or that poverty inherently involves less capacity to affect the material conditions of others?
That is, are poor people's dangerous beliefs less dangerous than those of richer people because of their content, or simply because the people holding them are less powerful?
The people doing that (and moreso, spreading the idea of it) largely are the intelligentsia (and largely not the proletarian intelligentsia), and while that’s one particular demonstrative act, its not by far the worst the faction doing it can be accused of.
So I’m not so sure that works as an example on multiple levels.
Religion ticks all these boxes.
In some contexts, so does patriotism, racism, worship of the military, publicly dumping cases of Bud Light, etc etc etc. In some ways, even disdain for education is a sort of expensive status display.
The author is just describing what people do.
Also, the author is picking on some trendy ideas which are currently held by some of the elites, but so what? It would be truly surprising if a decade-plus of higher education and immersion in data and discourse did not produce a different consensus. The author offers no evidence that “defund the police” is an inherently absurd idea, no more than other formerly radical ideas like universal suffrage or abolishing slavery. In my town, the police absorb over 20% of the city budget, have doubled their spend in the past decade, and are unaccountable to the people. So I think it’s at least a topic worthy of interest!