• Intralexical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    the other is advocating for the abolition of all law enforcement.

    This is a non sequitur, and also false beyond fringes.

    To be fair, this last one was a slogan explicitly used, at a level where it could be reasonably seen as mainstream depending on how much time you spent on the wrong websites.

    Kinda interesting, really— In-group signalling incentives greatly harmed the chances for successful out-group messaging.

    And sad, maybe— Could have possibly gotten a good thing going at that point— But I guess “Decrease funding to violent law enforcement in order to reallocate more resources to preventative and constructive community services” just doesn’t have the right ring to it in today’s media environment.

    As it was, it was big enough to get serious attention from several major cities, while also being self-defeating enough to thus far have had apparently basically no lasting positive impact whatsoever yet.

    • CapgrasDelusion@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You linked an article about cutting funding. I responded to a ridiculous comment about the abolition of all law enforcement.

      • Intralexical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe it’s just me, but my default interpretation when I hear about something being “defunded” is more or less synonymous with complete elimination.

        Either way, it doesn’t really matter, since everything else that comment was saying was indeed just bunk, and even this funding thing was indeed still at most a relatively fringe messaging failure.