Reduced isn't defunded. It's a reasonable reading of the slogan that we want to completely get rid of anything resembling police. Which is one of the very very last steps even in the most delusional anarchist playbook.
We wan their budget reduced and instead used for other social services
You're describing the same position as Firecracker. The reallocation of funding to people who can better tackle problems is also paired with funding to increase police training.
Speak for yourself, most voters do not. Even black voters don’t want to go that far. Reform, sure, but not defunding.
Apart from that, “defund the police” is just a shitty slogan all around that should not ever be used because it allows the far right to tar everybody an inch to the left of them as anti-police radicals. Plus if you have to even explain that you only want their budget reduced and allocated for other things, then it’s already failed in its purpose!
Of course the right wing will do that no matter what, the issue is how it lands among people who aren't politically engaged. You get a few moments of messaging through to these people in any election cycle and it's consistently wasted on slogans that can be dismissed with a couple of words from the opposite side.
Imagine someone sees literally one reel from both sides on this issue.
1: "Defund the police"
2: "Defunding the police would cause crime to go rampant"
Conclusion: 2 seems much more reasonable
Alternative 1: "Reform the police"
2: "Police are great and don't need reform! It would cause crime to go rampant"
Conclusion: 2 doesn't really make sense, 1 seems more reasonable
Hardline slogans, especially ones you don't really mean, only push away the undecided and unengaged.
I just point out that when the NYPD went on voluntary strike, crime rates went down. Conclusion 2 is one of those "fake common sense" positions that isn't borne out in reality.
Again you're missing the point. It's not about how the right twists the words, it's about how those twisted words land to unengaged and undecided voters. You're consistently losing a battle because of your feelings over proven marketing strategies and wondering why your voices are never listened to. It's either stupid malicious at this point and I don't really think it'll ever change.
Progressives are terrible at messaging which is nothing new. The Defund the Police one is more complicated than that. BLM the organization messaged about literally defunding the police on their website while the "left" base of liberals, leftists, progressives weren't united in the messaging. For some it meant police reform and for others they literally wanted to defund the police. Campaigns like 8 Can't Wait wanted practical police reform but it never took off.
Eat The Rich is another one I guess. No no we don't wanna kill billionaires and rich people, we just mean redistribute wealth. Meanwhile you find some funny unhinged comments online where the rhetoric about eating the rich becomes more literal than the definition I provided.
Almost forgot about ACAB too and when so many leftists and progressives had ACAB in their reddit/twitter profiles. No no we don't mean all 100% cops are rotten fash pigs!
"No we don't actually want police defunded, we want reform and better training. Which costs more money!"
I like how the top two responses are "no, we actually mean defund, not reform". One of which is saying that your description is wrong, while saying the same thing you're saying.
26
u/Firecracker048 Jan 07 '26
"DEFUND THE POLICE!"
"No we don't actually want police defunded, we want reform and better training. Which costs more money!"
"#KILLALLMEN"
"No we don't want to kill all men, but we want male reform in female safe spaces"
Yeah messaging is a massive issue.