[nemothekid]

>Then they should say "reform the police" not "defund the police". If you "defund the police", they will cease to exist, since nobody will be paying them.

Great idea, let's call the CEO of a grass roots protest and have their marketing department update the website copy. Do you realize what you are saying?

>Personally, I assume people actually mean what they say, so I think it's more likely they just want to be "radical" and haven't thought things through at all (as OP pointed out).

I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for. Kaepernick was trying to create a message about police reform for 5 years now, and no one cared about that - only the kneeling bit. "Defund the police" is the only message that has stuck. If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it. There is no CEO of protests that develops a finely tuned marketing message for what is essentially a populist movement.

[prewett]

> I think a very useful skill in life is being able to read past slogans and actually understand what people are asking for

I think a very useful skill in life is accurately communicating what you actually want to say so that the receiver understands your message. The responsibility of communicating is on the protestor--they are the ones trying to change things.

I don't think that the extremist language had anything to do with getting people talking about the problem. George Floyd's death is what got people talking about it. Seems to me the more radical people are advocating "defund the police" as a solution. If they really want police reform, why not just say that? They wouldn't alienate everyone who thinks that is a silly idea. So tactically it is a major blunder because they've needlessly lost support. Why would someone who disagrees with "defund the police" as a solution risk working with them--what if they actually believe what they say?

> If extremist messaging is what gets people talking about the problem then so be it.

This cuts both ways. Can I assume that you're good with the right wingers' extremism, too? And how are you going to keep it from escalating? They still aren't listening, better make the statement louder, maybe in blood this time? Extremism begets extremism.

I am pretty opposed to extremism, and I think a large part of the problem in the US is that the only voices are the extreme ones shouting really loud. A group of friends driven by loud, extreme voices is dysfunctional, and larger groups are no different.

Besides, reacting to a problem with extremes doesn't solve the problem, it only changes what problem you have. Historically it usually changes for the worst.

[nemothekid]

What you are asking for is for people to protest more nicely and to have a co-ordinated message. Ignoring the impossible ask of trying to get a single message from a decentralized movement, people have been asking for police reform. Black Lives Matter is founded on police reform. The original michael brown events was in 2014. I explicitly brought up Kapernick because he's been asking for reform in 2016! It's not until people starting saying defund did the message change from "well can we just have reform instead"?

Protests have always been extreme and riots has been historically the best vehivle of change for the proletariat. People on the ground are rarely going to be amazing orators in explaining what they need and for a underprivileged group, being reasonable has never worked. You have WSPU escalating to violence for Women's Suffrage in the UK. You have the troubles in Ireland. You have the underbelly of the violent race riots in MLK's marches.

And how do you keep it from escalating? By solving the underlying grievances people have. Most people don't turn to white supremacy through a pure ideological belief that the "white race" is superior. They start with system problems - increasing health costs, increasing housing costs and lack of upwards mobility, and in their search of their solutions they find someone who tells them what they want to hear.

At the end of the day when you have people rioting in the streets the time for "rational" discourse has long passed. The people who are most loudly chanting defund the police have been trying to reform for almost _10 years_.

[onecommentman]

The more useful skill in life is to take written statements at face value. Otherwise a more valuable life lesson will be learned when you challenge a written contract in court.

Even slogans must be taken at face value, e.g. the Jews in Europe who could have escaped Nazism in the early phase, but waited too long because “they can’t be serious…just read past the slogans, it will all pass.” Godwin’s “law” notwithstanding…just one egregious example among many.

Not suggesting SF is at this stage, but a blasé attitude to what is actually being said in these situations has had severe consequences in the recent past. If you say “defund the police”, you better mean “defund the police” because any mature adult excepting your parents (maybe your grandparents) are going to interpret it as abolishing/crowdsourcing(?) the police. If you don’t mean that, then don’t say that. If it’s just unclear, than stop saying it and say something clearer. It’s the responsible thing to do.

Late in Timothy Leary’s life he was giving his standard spiel and he was surrounded by the usual burnouts and psychedelic enthusiasts who were being unusually silly, naive and annoying. A friend commented to him “Does it ever seem to you that all the neurons you killed off over the years have reincarnated into these people?” You wonder about the homeless being the karmic hair shirt some older SF folks wear to repent for their misspent youth/adulthood or accidentally winning the housing lottery. There but for the grace of tech dollars and Daddy’s money go I.

PS: Doesn’t it seem the cities most bought into these political fads are also those with the most self-indulgent parenting styles? Might be worth a study.